Bowie wrote: » You support paying for 25 year leases on luxury D4 apartments for people on low/no income
markodaly wrote: » Oh great, another one. Market cap you say? This is Bank Of Ireland, the better of the Banks.... see the downward spiral of the share price? Peaks at about 950 in 2007.... This should also educate you.
Bowie wrote: » The bloods up tonight Marko Did the shareholders/bondholders walk away with nothing
To cut through your pedantry, did private individuals with money tied to investments in the banks walk away with nothing?
smurgen wrote: » You know nothing about this and are embarrassing yourself. The market cap of the bank was propped up by the government. The shareholders were bailed out.
Bank of Ireland’s market capitalisation in February 2007 was €18.2 billion. There were 979 million shares in issue, giving it a share price of €18.80. Today, there are roughly 30 billion Bank of Ireland shares in issue. So its shares would have to trade at 61 cent each for it to return to its 2007 glory.
markodaly wrote: » Schooled? I remember those debates, not even your friends here wadded in and they were right not to. It wasn't only I who was terribly confused by your South Park economics. Schooled by someone who doesn't know the difference between bonds and shares...... yeap... sure.... :D
markodaly wrote: » What is more amazing is that when afforded the opportunity to actually double-check the facts on this you actually double down on something that was plainly incorrect. Let me be clear on this and educate you. Shareholders were NOT bailed out, in fact, they were totally wiped out, completely. Fortunes were lost. That generally happens when a company is nationalised. Bondholders are not shareholders. This is finance/economics 101. You are welcome.
Bowie wrote: » Calm down. You've been schooled on housing numerous times. Here you feel the need to rant and are doing so. Party on dude.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » Load of nonsense smurgen and you know it too. Maybe you can try sticking to the facts, would serve you better.
Bowie wrote: » Private investors were rescued. They would have been wiped out but for the bail outs.Where did we buy the shares from? The con here is people talking about the need for a bailout like the problem fell from the sky and not a government MM was part of.
Bowie wrote: » I directly quoted him and commented on it. The banks were bailed out and private shareholders were saved from loses. That's as good a bail out as any.Amazed that you don't know how shares work.
smurgen wrote: » They were bailed out by default. Playing with language. The fact remains the entire country has paid USC for years now. This was Trumpian.
markodaly wrote: » I note you avoided the question. Well, you are free to be Anti-Vaxx, but at least be honest about it.
markodaly wrote: » The fact you have to ask these questions tells us everything about your lack of knowledge on basic finance and economics. Then again, its not a surprise given you preached South Park economics about the building of houses that "we own" yet are magically cheaper to build.... kinda like magic beans and fairy dust.
Bowie wrote: » the irony. You post is straight out of the Rep. GOP/Trump/Varadkar/YFG playbook
markodaly wrote: » Gavin is wrong in his title. MM clearly said that we didn't bail out the shareholders of the banks, which is entirely correct.
Deleted User wrote: » Could you honestly expect people to trust him now saying coronavirus vaccines are safe....
markodaly wrote: » It can sound anyway you want it to sound. Its the same thing Anti-Vaxxers parrot day in day out, 'Oh its sounds bad!'... even though there is no Science to back it up. Are you an Anti-Vaxxer? You keep parroting the Trumpian populist nonsense day in day out, about cronyism, yet offer no evidence of the sort. You keep going on about optics, or that it ' sounds very odd' yet offer no evidcie of support. Are you an Anti-Vaxxer, because your comments would lead me to belive you may be one. Ok, so you DONT know, is that what you are telling me? You have ZERO evidence it was a crony deal, never mind that some FG, FF, Green TD is in the thick of it picking tenders. So, basically, you have nothing to offer but some soundbites about optics. Again, are you an Anti-Vaxxer?
Bowie wrote: » If a bank is bailed out how would the affect any shareholders? If a bank is not charged tax on profits for 30 years how does that affect shareholders? Seems to me he was trying to put a bow on the bail outs.
Bowie wrote: » How do you explain it? The man is the only employee in his company. He promotes gigs in the middles east. He got the contract to bring in medical respirators/ventilators. I'll say that sounds very odd and likely crony.
What lie?
If I said I knew for a fact it was a crony deal and you knew for a fact it wasn't, that would be a lie.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Michael losing the rag and making a cod of himself.https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1339197451513847808
Bubbaclaus wrote: » Well it depends how literal you mean by "nothing". They still had their shares, now worthless and diluted into irrelevance. I recall the Church of Ireland being particularly badly hit at the time, they had a good few million worth of shares in the banks and lost it all.
Bowie wrote: » I was referring to the lies FF spun such as the IMF not being in the country. How much ministers knew about regulations being flouted. Ministers getting special loans etc. etc. Followed by Enda Kenny talking about the army at ATMs. We'll likely never know the full story. Nope. The 'nobody knows' does not relate to the bail outs. You are conflating the two not I. I've been quite clear on it. Did Anglo/AIB/BofI shareholders walk away with nothing?
Bubbaclaus wrote: » Ah here we go, you literally don't have a clue of how it all works, so suddenly nobody knows and "nobody but FF and their cronies know what really went on". You showed yourself up to be ignorant when trying to put down another poster with the comment "amazed that you don't understand how shares work", and when shown how wrong you are it suddenly tangents into a "nobody knows what happened except the cronies" retort. The shareholders didnt receive any money in the bailout. If the State had bought the shares off the shareholders, then the bailout money would have just gone to shareholders and none would have actually flowed into the banks. Do you not see how illogical the argument is to claim the State bought the shares off the shareholders? The banks would have just collapsed then because the bank itself hadn't received any money in that scenario.
Bowie wrote: » Did the bank shareholders walk away with nothing, yes or no? TBF, I suspect nobody but FF and their cronies know what really went on.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » It was a massive new issue of shares in the banks, they weren't "bought" from anywhere. The shareholders didn't receive anything and their shareholdings got diluted to essentially 0. Pretty amazing really that you clearly don't know what happened and you are coming out with statements like the below. It's pretty clear really that there is a large amount of people that don't actually know what happened during the bailout, or have any understanding of how a new issue of shares works and where the flow of funds go in a new issue.
Bowie wrote: » Private investors were rescued. They would have been wiped out but for the bail outs. Where did we buy the shares from? The con here is people talking about the need for a bailout like the problem fell from the sky and not a government MM was part of.
Bowie wrote: » Amazed that you don't know how shares work.
