FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

smurgen wrote: »

Read. But still trying to understand what you're saying exactly. What michael martin said was bull. I suppose I'll leave it to the king of Newspeak to summarize how I feel .

I've no idea what any of that has to do with the posts you have been making in this thread about shareholders and bailouts, but ok. I'm off to bed and can't be dealing with this nonsensical back and forth anymore.

Looking forward to your explanation of negative market caps by the way, when you eventually come up with it. I know you are going to full on ignore this part of my post by the way, just amuses me that you don't even attempt an answer.

It will be a revelation when you can show how share price*issued share capital (2 numbers which cannot be negative) when multiplied together arrive at a negative figure. A new age for mathematics

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Ah, we are back to conflating bondholders with shareholders I see.

Did you actually read the rest of the article you posted by the way? It isn't exactly supporting your argument.

Read. But still trying to understand what you're saying exactly. What michael martin said was bull. I suppose I'll leave it to the king of Newspeak to summarize how I feel

.

"Micheal Martin has now abandoned Fianna Fail’s apology for wrecking the economy and reverted to Bertie-speak, according to Health Minister and Fine Gael candidate in Dublin West Leo Varadkar.

At the FF Ard Fheis in 2012 Micheál Martin said :

‘It’s not enough to point to the World recession or other party’s policies. We were in government. We should have acted differently. We got things wrong. No equivocation. No half apology. Just the plain unvarnished truth’.

“Many people accepted and respected this apology. Yet Micheál Martin seems to have forgotten he ever made it. Instead, he has reverted to Bertie-speak, claiming the economic crash was ‘multi-factorial’ and that the Banking Inquiry blames others. It proves that they have learned nothing and that it’s the same old Fianna Fáil.

“Micheál Martin has shown a growing tendency during this election campaign to re-interpret history in a manner that would make the Soviet Union proud. He announced during a Leader’s Debate that he treated more patients as Minister for Health. Not true. He claimed that health infrastructure was transformed under his ministry. Not true. No even claimed to have increased life expectancy faster than in any country. Not true.

“Then again, this is the man who denied the bailout was coming two months before the Troika arrived, the man who voted against VAT cuts on tourism that created 30,000 jobs, the man who voted against USC cuts for middle income earners and who voted against tax equalisation for the self-employed.

“Micheál Martin seems to be pinning his hopes on an outbreak of collective amnesia, hoping that the people will forget that Fianna Fáil presided over the most horrific economic collapse in this State’s history, something he acknowledged and took responsibility for in the past"

https://www.finegael.ie/micheal-martins-total-recall-becomes-true-lies-as-he-rows-back-on-apology-for-wrecking-the-economy-varadkar-2/

smurgen wrote: »

The usual pedantry from the 2+2=5 brigade. To detract form Michael's booboo.

"PROTECTING BONDHOLDERS IN the failed banks was “rightly repugnant” and not forcing investors to wear some of the losses was a “significant flaw” in the troika’s bailout.

Those comments came from Central Bank governor Patrick Honohan at a conference involving one of Ireland’s lenders, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)."

https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-bailout-honohan-1889901-Jan2015/

Ah, we are back to conflating bondholders with shareholders I see.

Did you actually read the rest of the article you posted by the way? It isn't exactly supporting your argument.

James Brown

smurgen wrote: »

The usual pedantry from the 2+2=5 brigade. To detract form Michael's booboo.

"PROTECTING BONDHOLDERS IN the failed banks was “rightly repugnant” and not forcing investors to wear some of the losses was a “significant flaw” in the troika’s bailout.

Those comments came from Central Bank governor Patrick Honohan at a conference involving one of Ireland’s lenders, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)."

https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-bailout-honohan-1889901-Jan2015/

As you can see if you say something they don't want to hear they get all YFG about it.

markodaly wrote: »

Ah but blanch, you have been destroyed by the facts here, they were bailed out after all, sure they get €0.01 of €1 of their money back!!

Loaded they were after the bailout, so they were! :pac::pac:

The usual pedantry from the 2+2=5 brigade. To detract form Michael's booboo.

"PROTECTING BONDHOLDERS IN the failed banks was “rightly repugnant” and not forcing investors to wear some of the losses was a “significant flaw” in the troika’s bailout.

Those comments came from Central Bank governor Patrick Honohan at a conference involving one of Ireland’s lenders, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)."

https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-bailout-honohan-1889901-Jan2015/

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Many many good ordinary business people,farmers etc,who worked hard all their lives were duped into buying bank shares (know locally of one family lost million odd)....the old people around here,who bought through land commission etc warned us well clear of the banks,

Well, they will all be delighted to know that they were all actually bailed out, as was discovered today thanks to the revelations of Smurgen and Bowie.

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, all I am doing is asking you to take the losses that the AIB shareholders took. Send me the cheque for €5k and I guarantee that you will get the €5 cheque back. After all, if they lost nothing, you have nothing to lose.

Ah but blanch, you have been destroyed by the facts here, they were bailed out after all, sure they get €0.01 of €1 of their money back!!

Loaded they were after the bailout, so they were! :pac::pac:

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, all I am doing is asking you to take the losses that the AIB shareholders took. Send me the cheque for €5k and I guarantee that you will get the €5 cheque back. After all, if they lost nothing, you have nothing to lose.

Because the state lost on their behalf.
They should have zero back creditors should have nothing back and the state should not have bailout the banks to the tune of 40-42 billion EUR.

https://amp.rte.ie/amp/914665/

https://www.pai.ie/bank-bailout-costs-state-nearly-e42-billion/

smurgen wrote: »

So are you saying if the write downs of the loans happened on the banks books without government intervention the value of the bank would have remained positive?

You are mistaking Market Cap to the Debt to Equity Ratio.
Rookie mistake.

Deleted User wrote: »

Except this isnt what i said

No need to get snarky because you have been destroyed with facts

E5 is worth money,otherwise it would be taken out of circulation......quite why you wish to claim otherwise is fcuking bizzare mate

Well, all I am doing is asking you to take the losses that the AIB shareholders took. Send me the cheque for €5k and I guarantee that you will get the €5 cheque back. After all, if they lost nothing, you have nothing to lose.

markodaly wrote: »

Ill answer all that when you tell me all about Negative Market Caps..

So are you saying if the write downs of the loans happened on the banks books without government intervention the value of the bank would have remained positive?

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

To ensure there was no negative market capitalization, of course.

Don't use words and phrases that others don't understand.

smurgen wrote: »

Why didn't the write down on the loans happen on the banks books?

To ensure there was no negative market capitalization, of course.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Would love to hear your opinion as to why you think NAMA was established. My guess is it will include mentions of cronies and other hot takes, rather than a factual answer involving Basel II and ensuring the country had a functioning banking system.

Why didn't the write down on the loans happen on the banks books?

Deleted User wrote: »

If something is worth 0.01c its still worth money

Anyone who thinks e5 is worthless isnt paying enough tax

I tell you what, you send me a cheque for €5,000, once I have cashed it, I will send you a cheque for €5 and I can remind you that it isn't worthless.

smurgen wrote: »

Tell me this. Why didn't the write down on the loans happen on the banks books? Why the guarantee and the establishment of NAMA?

Ill answer all that when you tell me all about Negative Market Caps..

smurgen wrote: »

Tell me this. Why didn't the write down on the loans happen on the banks books? Why the guarantee and the establishment of NAMA?

Would love to hear your opinion as to why you think NAMA was established. My guess is it will include mentions of cronies and other hot takes, rather than a factual answer involving Basel II and ensuring the country had a functioning banking system.

smurgen wrote: »

The shares are worth money today. They were not liquidated. But the state took over the banks loans. Of the bank was viable why were loans transferred from AIB to NAMA?

https://www.nama.ie/news/nama-completes-transfer-of-first-tranche-of-loans-from-aib

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-the-losers-in-aib-share-wipeout-26694051.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/big-loss-on-aib-bank-investment-250-shares-now-equal-one-1.2892527

If you somehow think that a collapse from €5175 (2007) to €5 (2016) means the shares are worth money, you are more than a little deluded.

markodaly wrote: »

Lack of humility and the cop on to even admit that he was
a) wrong
b) out of his depth
c) doesn't have a bulls notion what he is blabbing on
d) all of the above

Tell me this. Why didn't the write down on the loans happen on the banks books? Why the guarantee and the establishment of NAMA?

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

He just doesn't seem to get it for some reason.

What is crazy is that he is not the only one.

Is it propaganda from Parnell Square that they have swallowed? Is there a poster with multiple accounts? I know they are unfair accusations but in some ways they are more credible than there being half a dozen posters who still believe the shareholders were bailed out.

blanch152 wrote: »

Say what? Are you actually claiming that the shareholders were bailed out? Like seriously?

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0429/1135558-anglo-irish-bank-report/

They got nothing, zero, zilch.

The shares are worth money today. They were not liquidated. But the state took over the banks loans. Of the bank was viable why were loans transferred from AIB to NAMA?

https://www.nama.ie/news/nama-completes-transfer-of-first-tranche-of-loans-from-aib

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

He just doesn't seem to get it for some reason.

Lack of humility and the cop on to even admit that he was
a) wrong
b) out of his depth
c) doesn't have a bulls notion what he is blabbing on
d) all of the above

blanch152 wrote: »

Say what? Are you actually claiming that the shareholders were bailed out? Like seriously?

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0429/1135558-anglo-irish-bank-report/

They got nothing, zero, zilch.

Get away with your Facts. This is a post-truth world where some random guy on the net is an authority on everything from Vaccines, Trade Agreements and Finance.

Online Degrees for all.

blanch152 wrote: »

Say what? Are you actually claiming that the shareholders were bailed out? Like seriously?

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0429/1135558-anglo-irish-bank-report/

They got nothing, zero, zilch.

He just doesn't seem to get it for some reason.

smurgen wrote: »

A bank bailout is a shareholder bailout. Equity shares are one aspect of the banks capital base the other being debt. The government guaranteed the debt and took massive write downs. Are you saying the share holders would have guaranteed the debt?

Smurgen, none of the above makes sense. You clearly don't have an understanding of these things, and that is fine, but I don't know why you keep going. The bank bailout was absolutely not a shareholder bailout. The State even had to get special permission to do what they did, as it broke laws that were in place to protect shareholders.

Shareholders did not get bailed out, they got wiped out. That is clear for everyone, particularly all the people that had shares in the banks at the time and got their arse handed to them.

smurgen wrote: »

A bank bailout is a shareholder bailout. Equity shares are one aspect of the banks capital base the other being debt. The government guaranteed the debt and took massive write downs. Are you saying the share holders would have guaranteed the debt?

Say what? Are you actually claiming that the shareholders were bailed out? Like seriously?

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0429/1135558-anglo-irish-bank-report/

They got nothing, zero, zilch.

Tpcl20 wrote: »

I couldn't bring myself to read this thread but I just said I'd drop in and mention that the Greens have done a U-turn on the CETA and it looks like the government will legally be unable to prevent large corporations from perpetrating environmental devastation and criminally exploiting our country into the future.

How some lunatic doesn't go ballistic and make those corrupt pricks at the top pay the iron price is a testament to the calmness and ignorance of the vast majority of the Irish population.

On CETA, this is an EU Trade Agreement. Good luck trying to renegotiate this.
Again, this is senior hurling.

Also, can we get rid of the advocation for violence please?

Deleted User wrote: »

Giving up the pretense of caring about gay rights already??

didnt take long

Say what?

I also have a unicorn out back to sell to those who believe that the bank shareholders were bailed out.

If people can go 12 years thinking the shareholders were bailed out, I am sure they will pay €200,000 for the donkey with a plastic horn unicorn I have out back.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I think you are highly confused, and I can't figure out if it is genuine confusion on your part or if you are on the wind up. I was disputing the claim that there was a shareholder bailout, which you and another poster were claiming.

There was a bank bailout, not a shareholder bailout.

A bank bailout is a shareholder bailout. Equity shares are one aspect of the banks capital base the other being debt. The government guaranteed the debt and took massive write downs. Are you saying the share holders would have guaranteed the debt?