FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You may wish to inform your glorious leader,he deosnt seem to think so :pac:

My glorious leader? Not sure what makes you think I'm a FF voter.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Where does my post imply that? Making up stuff again smurgen. Of course there was a bank bail out.

I'm simply pointing out the factually incorrect information being so blatantly thrown around on here. You clearly don't understand the bank bailout and how it actually worked, and that is fine. Plenty of people don't get economic stuff. A quick trawl of facebook comments on economic and financial news articles will show that.

However, blatantly posting incorrect information, as you were doing, and confidently claiming other posters are wrong when you are completely making things up is a whole separate ballgame. Trumpian.

Michael Martin said there wasn't a bank bailout. This is what you were arguing against now you're admitted it. Good!

smurgen wrote: »

Michael Martin said there wasn't a bank bailout. This is what you were arguing against now you're admitted it. Good!

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.

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.

Did you even read the link???????

The journal factchecked it and agreed that private shareholders were not bailed out and were not saved from losses. This is pretty basic stuff about the bailout. Do you really believe what you posted?

P.S. Can I interest you in a rainbow I have for sale?

PearseCork92 wrote: »

Are people seriously making the argument that what went down post '08 weren't bailouts?

No, don't be so silly.

What people are doing is explaining to others that the private shareholders lost out in the bailout and weren't rescued. If you owned shares in Anglo in 2008, poor you, you lost everything.

That doesn't mean the banks weren't bailed out, but those who were bailed out were firstly bondholders. The next group bailed out were those who owed money to the banks but never paid it back. The shareholders lost out.

Tpcl20

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.

PearseCork92 wrote: »

Are people seriously making the argument that what went down post '08 weren't bailouts?

No, but correcting the record that shareholders were not bailed out.

If you cannot tell the difference between a bondholder and shareholder then perhaps this can help.
https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/ap-macroeconomics/ap-financial-sector/financial-assets-ap/v/bonds-vs-stocks

smurgen wrote: »

Michael Martin said there wasn't a bank bailout. This is what you were arguing against now you're admitted it. Good!

Any word on Negative Market Caps???

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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: »

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..

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.

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?

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: »

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

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

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?

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.

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.