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.
[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,
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:
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/
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.
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 .
In contrast, it was largely taken for granted that holders of subordinated debt, also known as “junior bondholders”, were not subject to similar protection and would receive very little of what was owed to them. This position was reflected in a “take it or leave it” offer of 20 cent on the dollar/euro to junior bondholders by the Irish government, an offer accepted by most creditors. Some, however, decided to “hold out”, including by selling their claims to hedge and distressed debt funds (otherwise known as “vulture funds”). Fast forward several years and considerable legal activity in the meantime regarding junior debt, including litigation in the UK courts. Most recently, a few days before Christmas the Government let it be known that for legal reasons outstanding holders of junior bonds issued by Anglo Irish would have to be “made whole”, i.e. repaid in full.
The State could have saved more than €9 billion by imposing losses on senior debt holders at the six Irish banks, the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) told the Government in March 2011. Written evidence supplied to the Oireachtas banking inquiry shows the NTMA, which manages Ireland’s national debt, advised the Government that “immediate steps” could be taken to enable this burden sharing, adding that markets had already priced this haircut into the bonds. But it also warned that there could be potential implications with “external authorities”, a reference to the European Central Bank, which had warned Dublin a “bomb” would go off if it was to do so. The failure to impose losses on senior bondholders to recoup some of the cost of the €64 billion bank bailout has been a source of political controversy since Fine Gael and Labour entered Government.
smurgen wrote: » The usual pedantry from the 2+2=5 brigade. To detract form Michael's booboo.
Bowie wrote: » As you can see if you say something they don't want to hear they get all YFG about it.
Bowie wrote: » So nobody came away with any money from failed not fit for purpose bailed out banks?
markodaly wrote: » Ah, I see you want to move the goalposts now, from your earlier utterances. Shareholders own shares Bondholders own bonds. Shares are equity Bonds are debt Do you understand this bit at least? Is that too much to take in? Or do I need to dumb it down further for you. I know these are new concepts, so ill be patient.
markodaly wrote: » Well, you say something alright. Gibberish for the most part, usually factually wrong and displaying ignorance and contempt for the facts, but yes, I guess you do say something alright. Ill give you that.
Taoiseach Micheál Martin referenced the bank bailout some 57 times in the Dáil before his "bizarre" claim that the Irish banks “were not bailed out” yesterday. The Taoiseach was accused of seeking to re-write history and "denying reality" in making his claim that the banks did not receive a €64bn bailout.
smurgen wrote: » Typed like a person who doesn't pay all that much USC every month. His words are irrelevant because the deductible is there in black and white and no amount of revisionism from him or the likes of Bertie will tell the taxpayers otherwise. His words in the Dail and subsequent apologist words here tell me that lessons have not been learnt.
Nobotty wrote: » Micheál Martin must be reading the Kamikaze handbook
FrancieBrady wrote: » He got Leo curtailed and off the silly Tweeting, self promotion fixation etc, then he goes and loses the rag and puts himself in the frame. You couldn't write the level of absurdity.
markodaly wrote: » Words are irrelevant, much like the truth it seems. Tell me all about Negative Market Caps.
smurgen wrote: » I have to laugh at some someone arguing that taxpayers funds were used to bailout and arguing on pedantics thinking they've won an argument. Imagine if the money was physically burned and you think you're correct because you've pointed out it was actually diesel used to burn the money instead of petrol. That's basically where you're at. Lol.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Woulfe is back. Kelly grilling Varadkar in the Dáil on latest revelations.
Bowie wrote: » I'm not but I prefer them to FF/FG. More a SD person. Yes, because that would be irellivant regarding this. Yes, that's not good enough on the tax payers coin. We deserve better than what we've come to expect from FF/FG and hangers on. Yes. It's cronyism with other peoples money. It should be recognised as fraud. As with any crony sweet deal. Well excusing it as 'the way it is' and scaremongering any party outside of FF/FG, you might be okay with it. I'm not.
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.
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.
markodaly wrote: » If you think differentiating between a bondholder and a shareholder is mere 'pedantics' then its no surprise people can be so ignorant about complex topics. Tell me all about Negative Market Cap's.... anytime soon will do.
jmayo wrote: » I was trying to make the point that there is corruption without it being linked to ff, fg, labour or indeed sf or sd. And if you think otherwise you are deluded.
jmayo wrote: » ......... What a surprise a lot of them would vote for the more socialist magic money tree parties. :rolleyes: Then again the other parties are fooking useless as well.
smurgen wrote: » Go on educate us on the difference of between a bondholder and shareholder in the context of government bailout using taxpayer money.
