What happens is money changes people. And it did that to Seanie no matter what he'd have you believe. He paid a visit to the Parish Priest a few days after his sermon denouncing the paymaster. I wonder why he would have done that.
...
Imagine Seanie even managed to piss people off over there.
Why do you persist in referring to him by a different name? Its not as an insult. It is not a name anyone calls him.
Because I want to. And let's be honest given the cost he has put on the taxpayer with no apologies or regret he could be called a lot worse.
Funnily enough Buffet did actually lose money on Irish bank shares, he bought into AIB and BOI too early and took a hit. But you're basically correct, Buffet's losses on the odd unsuccessful investment would never be enough to bring him down as he always conscious of the old adage of diversifying and not putting his eggs in the one basket.
IIRC his problem was the leveraged nature of the investment, ie contracts for difference. If he'd just made a cash investment in Anglo he'd have taken a heavy hit but would likely still be intact, ie still have control of most of his empire. That said I never fully believed the claims about Quinn's alleged billionaire status. Why the need to resort to such leverage to back the Anglo investment in the first place?
A lot of time they called him a billionaire because they added up the assets. Like all the land in cavan, the offices, the pubs, the factories etc
It doesn't necessary mean he has billions sitting in the bank
Loads of people did, at the time when the share price fell it was advised to buy buy buy because the banks would never go lower. Loads of people sunk huge money, for them, into Irish banking shares. Only for the share price to tank a few days later.
A lot of people on this thread very knowledgeable in hindsight, at the time nobody knew how bad the Irish banks, especially Anglo was. Of course everyone was also been told it was a blip. Including Quinn.
The bail out was 64 billion. The number discussed about Quinn was 2-3 billion. I don't see RTE making a show on the people who cost the other 61 billion, do you?
Why doesn't RTE do a show on the Central Bank of Ireland and figure out what exactly they had involved in the crash? because looking at the profits during and after the crash the CEntral Bank who was supposed to stop the craziness happening was making bigger and better profits than before.
They've made plenty of programmes about other people and institutions who were in part to blame for the bailout eg on Anglo and Irish Nationwide. In fact Quinn got much more of a fair deal. He was given the opportunity to present his side of the story. Fitzpatrick and Fingleton didn't, for example.
I do agree that they should do an investigation about the Central Bank. But they are obviously not prepared to rock that boat.
But the narrative of your post is basically the usual "everyone else to blame except Quinn" that we always get from his dwindling bunch of supporters. It's a tired old broken record.
+1
if Quinn had put a few hundred million on Anglo as a recovery play , he’d have been sore but could have easily recovered, he went ball5 deep
There's never been a good investigation of Fingleton/Irish Nationwide unfortunately. He's been too sick to participate in the formal inquiry, poor lad.
Central Bank again proving they are a joke shop
Sssssshhhh. Don't talk about Seanie because he only cost the Irish People 4 Billion. Sure that's nothing. Give him everything back too because it's his an nobody else is allowed to have it.
The Regulator was a huge joke too yet he walked away with a huge pension after completely fecking up. Only in Ireland.
The Regulator can only use the legislation given by Government. Micky McDowell specifically went for a 'light touch regulation' approach for the new regulator, in line with the PD's pro-business thinking, and still Seanie F complained about being hamstrung by regulators!
Any particular reason you keep calling him Seanie?
Wrong, there have been extensive and rigorous investigations into both and they found no criminality. There has never been one into AIB, the 'pillar bank' whose history includes two taxpayer bailouts, the DIRT scandal, Allfirst collapse, forex overcharging, directors using offshore accounts, yada yada.
Don't suppose you'd like to share a link to these extensive and rigorous investigations into Fingleton and Irish Nationwide?
By all means.
Really not hard to find.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/nationwide-hires-e-y-for-inquiry-1.655826
Now lets see some links into the investigations into AIB...waits with bated breath...
I agree with you here, McDowell and the PD's deserve a lot of the blame for the whole light touch ethos. Ahern and Cowen went along with it.
Eh, that's the Central Bank enquiry that was aborted because Fingers was too sick (or too busy doing property deals in Montenegro) to attend, as detailed in the first link I provided.
The Irish Nationwide/EY inquiry is them inquiring into themselves, and was never published, so I've no idea how you'd know it was comprehensive and rigorous.
Parts of the Oireachtas inquiry refers to 'Bank A' and 'Bank D' so I've no idea what conclusions you came to about INBS from all that.
'Finding no criminality' is an incredibly low bar to set. It's not really about criminality. It's about how one man's ego cost the state €6 billion, in the case of Irish Nationwide.
If that's aimed at me, don't hold your breath. I didn't make any comment about AIB.
It obviously suited them.
Blessed with I’ll health!
The only 'Seanie' in this tale is Sean Fitzpatrick. No one refers to Quinn as Seanie other than you.
I've decided to start calling him Seanie too
For the record he was widely known as “Border Seanie” or simply “Quinn” in Dublin during the Celtic tiger years
I’m Seanie!
Quinny or Seanie
If you want to take a really detached view there is a chapter in The Alchemy of Finance (1987) by George Soros called "The Banking and Regulatory Cycle" where he says that that attitudes towards lending and regulations ebb and flow in decades-long cycles.
So for instance there was still rigid US banking regulation in the 1950s, because of the after-effects of the 1929 crash and the fall-out in the 1930s and 40s, which gradually eased off afterwards.
When a new generation of bankers and legislators with no memory of a previous big crash assume control of institutions then banking regulations begin to loosen and continue to loosen until the next crash. Obviously this isn't an exact phenomenon.
Michael McDowell was only born in 1951 which loosely fits in with this theoretical understanding.
So maybe another 15 years before I start investing in banks again?
Is the nephew still up North? Peter Quinn.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/af363a76b28e23adac96595ef0d10b67.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/2b6abd1dfa48dd1de9143b108494281e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0c95fbacfd3f8db330cceee65321bca3.svg)