Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Irish Govt guarantees banks for two years

245678

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    Overheal wrote: »
    you mighthave got the wheels back for her. maybe a couple of the doors if she was a milf.

    She's not. I would have only been wasting their time. 19" wheels would look stupid on my Yaris anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,308 ✭✭✭Rowley Birkin QC


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Potentially could cost €500bn according to Davy.

    Ah don't pay any heed to Davy, he's just trying to diversify after the All-Ireland.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Does the guarantee have any implications from a State Aid perspective? While it is not actual expenditure, it is a potential financial exposure at current levels of approx. 435billion....... Its massive. The AIB bailout is a laugh in comparison.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Seeing as so much is unknown I'd hazard a guess that inaction could have proved more costly. The reaction of the ISEQ today suggests that it might be a good idea. I think it was a smart one. €435bn is if the whole system collapses and all the banks fail. There was also a perceived risk that large corporate deposits could've flowed out of Irish banks and the guarantees should help stem that and may even attract more money. Not a bailout as banks will have to pay for it. As I heard someone say on radio, "the fire needs to be put out first before we get to the blame game".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,566 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    Am I right in saying that the 5 to 7 hundred billion is the projected total size of the underwrite?

    If so, we would only have to pay it all if ALL of the VARIOUS banks' are forced to close, and at the same time as all of their cash, properties, mortgages and other assets magically disappear? Otherwise, a fair amount of any potential underwrite would be covered by the liquidation of a failing bank's assets, yes?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,432 ✭✭✭Peteee


    Am I right in saying that the 5 to 7 hundred billion is the projected total size of the underwrite?

    If so, we would only have to pay it all if ALL of the VARIOUS banks' are forced to close, and at the same time as all of their cash, properties, mortgages and other assets magically disappear? Otherwise, a fair amount of any potential underwrite would be covered by the liquidation of a failing bank's assets, yes?

    Pretty much. If all the banks failed... well you'd have more to worry about then the 400bn bill, I'd be more worried about looters and the local dunnes running out of food!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,432 ✭✭✭Peteee


    is_that_so wrote: »
    There was also a perceived risk that large corporate deposits could've flowed out of Irish banks and the guarantees should help stem that and may even attract more money.

    Theres reports of a lot of deposits going into Northern Rock, as this bank has the implicit backing of the UK government, given they nationalised them last year (Or whenever it was) so its considered safe as... houses :p


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    I laughed when I heard the statement from Michael Fingleton on Six-One where he implied that this action would unblock the housing market and underpin houseprices, giving first time buyers the confidence to go and spend again........


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    smccarrick wrote: »
    it is a potential financial exposure at current levels of approx. 435billion....... Its massive.
    While it could potentially be that high, in reality it would never be. That figure is if every single person in the state lost 100,000. In reality there aren't many people who would have any where near €100,000 in a bank account. Hell, I know a lot of people who would be lucky to be in the black by the time pay day comes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Yes banks only covered if Hq in Republic

    Deposits covered up to 100k is bank operates in republic.. eg Rabo etc.

    Apparently not quite true,deposits in Rabo not included in the guarantee as they have no branches in the Republic. So I'm told.

    However I'm led to believe that Rabo has a triple A rating which is equivelent to the security guarantee given by the irish Govt. so I wouldn't worry there.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 647 ✭✭✭My name is Mud


    Rabo are not in the €100k scheme, as they didn't apply to the Irish Govt to be included.

    They didn't apply as they are confident enough that they wont go under.

    Heres the info of whats covered:
    http://www.itsyourmoney.ie/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=100&nID=153&aID=620


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,566 ✭✭✭daveharnett


    While it could potentially be that high, in reality it would never be. That figure is if every single person in the state lost 100,000. In reality there aren't many people who would have any where near €100,000 in a bank account. Hell, I know a lot of people who would be lucky to be in the black by the time pay day comes.

    I think the sums are a bit more complicated than that cushion. The banks owe money to people other than it's customers. The fact that the banks give out more money than it takes in is why the banks need this guarantee in the first place.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    I think the sums are a bit more complicated than that cushion. The banks owe money to people other than it's customers. The fact that the banks give out more money than it takes in is why the banks need this guarantee in the first place.

    Correct- they have a pre-approved liquidity ratio (which I believe was recently increased from around 7% to 10%- which is one of the reasons that dividends have been cut for shareholders and banks have been attempting to attract further funds- totally aside from the lack of working capital for their day to day business).


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    From this morning's Indo:

    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/state-bailout-far-from-being-the-commercial-deal-cowen-claims-it-is-1486487.html

    By Bernard Waters, Wednesday October 01 2008

    The government's decision to unconditionally guarantee Irish bank deposits and inter-bank loans exposes the taxpayer to potentially huge risks. With property prices still falling, it is likely that the government's deposit guarantee will be called upon sooner rather than later.

    Between them, the Irish banks owe their depositors, other banks and bondholders almost €400bn. That's more than twice the value of our total annual economic output and 10 times the total national debt.

    Guarantee

    Presenting the guarantee scheme to the Dail yesterday, Taoiseach Brian Cowen portrayed it as a commercial arrangement, with the banks paying a market-determined fee to guarantee deposits and wholesale funding.

    It is, of course, nothing of the sort. Before the government's dramatic move yesterday, Irish banks were paying between 2.5pc and 5.5pc over Euroibor for wholesale funding. If the guarantee scheme were to reflect market reality, then the banks should be paying somewhere between 2.5pc and 5.5pc of the amount guaranteed, from €10bn to €22bn a year, to the government.

    Will the government charge the banks anywhere near this amount for the guarantee? Will it what?

    Even a €10bn premium would more than wipe out the profits of the Irish banking system. This isn't an arms-length commercial transaction, but the first stage in what is likely to be a protracted bailout of the banks, whose balance sheets have been stretched to breaking point and beyond by the collapse in Irish property prices.

    Total property-related lending by the Irish banks now stands at a towering €240bn. Even a 10pc writedown in the value of this lending would wipe out more than half the reserves of the Irish banks.

    The biggest risk posed by yesterday's move is what bankers call "moral hazard". With the government's unconditional guarantee of all deposits and inter-bank funding having eliminated the danger of a "run" on a bank by nervous depositors, what is there to stop financial institutions lending irresponsibly in the knowledge that the state will pick up the tab?

    To take a hypothetical example, Bank A has been approached by Developer B to lend him money to fund a property development scheme. Up to yesterday, Bank A, experiencing difficulty attracting money from depositors and other banks, and sceptical about the merits of the scheme, was reluctant to lend Developer B the money.

    Now, with the government having unconditionally guaranteed all deposits and inter-bank funding with Irish-owned banks, Bank A is awash with funds once again.

    So will Bank A now lend Developer B, with whom it has a long relationship, the money he is seeking, rather than stick with its earlier reservations?

    Extreme

    While this is no doubt an extreme example, it will be almost impossible for the government to avoid being dragged further and further into the day-to-day running of the banks as it seeks to prevent them from abusing the guarantee.

    The guarantee scheme will almost certainly turn into the financial equivalent of a tar baby: the more desperately the government seeks to escape from its clutches, the more enmeshed it will become.

    With more than one of the banks covered by the guarantee likely to experience problems in the near future as the true state of property loan books emerges, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the government to maintain the fiction that yesterday's guarantee is no more than a temporary little arrangement. Far more likely is that it will be the start of a long drawn-out process that will last for many years and cost the taxpayer tens of billions of euro.

    - Bernard Waters


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    My initial concern regarding State Aid has also come up:

    http://www.independent.ie/business/european/europe-to-investigate-states-deposits-pledge-1486489.html

    By Ailish O'Hora Business News Editor, Wednesday October 01 2008

    THE European Commission (EC) is to investigate the Government's plan to guarantee all bank deposits in its bid to improve the industry's access to international funds frozen by the credit crunch.

    The Commission will focus its investigation on the competitive aspects of the deal and will consider whether the lifeline to the banks could be considered State aid. It is understood that once the EC has the details of the plan, it could make a ruling on it within a week.

    It will also consider the competition aspects of the deal as it does not cover non-Irish owned banks operating in the Irish market, like Ulster Bank, which is owned by Royal Bank of Scotland and Rabobank.

    And, while the banks are paying for the guarantee at a commercial rate, the EC will still have to investigate this aspect of it.

    Decision

    Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd said yesterday that the length of time it takes the EC to make its decision will depend "on how much information we get and the degree of co-operation we have from the Irish authorities."

    He confirmed that the EC had been made aware of the deal before an announcement was made yesterday.

    Yesterday there were some suggestions that the Irish pledge, which covers up to €400bn of liabilities, or more than twice the country's annual GDP and includes retail, commercial and interbank deposits for two years, could be used as a template for other countries. "This may be a template for rescues elsewhere if Irish banks can replenish their capital base," said Harvinder Sian, a fixed-income strategist at Royal Bank of Scotland. "That would, over the medium term, positively impact risk assets."

    However, others said it might not be that simple. "The banking liabilities of the Irish domestic banks relative to Gross Domestic Product would not be as extensive as say that of the Germans or Swiss," said Scott Rankin, an analyst at Davy Research.

    - Ailish O'Hora Business News Editor


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,432 ✭✭✭Peteee


    However I'm led to believe that Rabo has a triple A rating which is equivelent to the security guarantee given by the irish Govt. so I wouldn't worry there.

    A triple A rating... just like the ones Lehman and AIG had the day before they went bust?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    Does anyone find it scary that the Irish government are providing 400 billion but that the US bailout plan is only 700 billion? This to me would indicate the US bailout plan is not sufficient to address their problem.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,813 ✭✭✭TPD


    kmick wrote: »
    Does anyone find it scary that the Irish government are providing 400 billion but that the US bailout plan is only 700 billion? This to me would indicate the US bailout plan is not sufficient to address their problem.

    €400bn vs $700bn - roughly the same.

    Edit: Well not quite, but Ireland's is still unrealistically high.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    kmick wrote: »
    Does anyone find it scary that the Irish government are providing 400 billion but that the US bailout plan is only 700 billion? This to me would indicate the US bailout plan is not sufficient to address their problem.

    They have already advanced in excess of 600 billion to financial institutions at overnight rates- part one of the proposed US plan only called for an initial 350bl more- i.e. only bumping up what has already been fed into the system by another 35%...... Yes- the US plan is most probably pissing in a bucket- but its sentiment that counts as much as anything else.

    With respect of the Irish plan- it screams of panic, and despite the bleating of the Taoiseach is no more on commercial terms than a hit and run accident is...... Its quite laughable, precisely because if a worst case scenario did evolve- we are not in a position to honour the guarantee.......

    Does anyone know if there is a mechanism for impeaching a sitting government in this country?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    kmick wrote: »
    Does anyone find it scary that the Irish government are providing 400 billion but that the US bailout plan is only 700 billion? This to me would indicate the US bailout plan is not sufficient to address their problem.
    The Irish Government dose not have 400 Billion, it is only calling its bluff to give some credibility for the banks to prevent a rush on deposits.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    smccarrick wrote: »
    They have already advanced in excess of 600 billion to financial institutions at overnight rates- part one of the proposed US plan only called for an initial 350bl more- i.e. only bumping up what has already been fed into the system by another 35%...... Yes- the US plan is most probably pissing in a bucket- but its sentiment that counts as much as anything else.

    With respect of the Irish plan- it screams of panic, and despite the bleating of the Taoiseach is no more on commercial terms than a hit and run accident is...... Its quite laughable, precisely because if a worst case scenario did evolve- we are not in a position to honour the guarantee.......

    Does anyone know if there is a mechanism for impeaching a sitting government in this country?

    If you had been watching and following the debate about this you'd be aware that it is supported by all parties, with various degrees of reservations, so not sure who you would you put in.
    I think that Cowen has been at his best this week and on far safer ground than his role as Taoiseach. No-one knows what the cost/charge will be at the moment so you're being a tad unfair. The Central Bank and Financial regulator will work that out.

    It may all offend your sensibilities and your sense of outrage but it has to be done. There appear to be three possible ways to deal with this. US style, British/EU nationalisation or what we've come with , which is similar to what the Swedes also did in the 1990s. There is a possible risk to us all but the risk of a system-wide collapse is not in anyone's interest which is where this bill is aimed. The Irish banks were pretty much at the edge of a cliff earlier this week because markets didn't believe they were not a risk. They may still be a risk but like it or not they are major players in the Irish economy and letting them fail is really not an option.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,887 ✭✭✭Dubh Geannain


    How do you think they'll solve the inevitable flow of money from the non-irish based banks to the ones covered by this bill?

    I know when Northern rock was guaranteed by the british government they set the bank a limit in terms of what they could accept in deposits. They've pretty much reached this limit now.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    is_that_so wrote: »
    They may still be a risk but like it or not they are major players in the Irish economy and letting them fail is really not an option.

    Making them pay, though, is an option. It was alluded to by the Taoiseach, however when questioned he squirmed like nothing else. Given that the interbank lending rate for the 6 institutions ranged from 2.6 to 5.9% *above* Euribor rates (themselves about 5.6-5.8%) it would be a reasonable assumption that the guarantee would have a net cost of ~5% and any funds actually advanced under the guarantee of ~10%. However there is absolutely no indication that any of the institutions are being requested to cough up. Its all well and good shoveling the responsibility onto the taxpayer- but there should be a commensurate (or at very least a sufficient) cost to be shouldered by the institutions themselves, in recognition of the appalling mess they have gotten themselves into.

    Its all well and good blaming the international situation for the mess the Irish banking industry finds itself in- the short and simple however is that their business model was based on a level of risk that their international counterparts was not (with the possible exceptions of some of the more lax US institutions).

    Allowing one or two of the Irish institutions to go up the wall (think Anglo Irish) or possibly be taken over by larger more secure EU competitors (a la the media speculation of Santander taking over BOI) would not in itself necessarily be a bad thing. Shoveling unacceptable levels of risk onto the taxpayer without any commensurate benefits- is a bad thing.

    Its still being debated in the Dail this morning- but the whole thing screams of panic in government circles.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Other banks are covered in other jurisdictions. Over 90% are under €100k AFAIK. NIB have requested to be part of the scheme and I think they've been allowed to. Brian Lenihan appears to be open to considering individual cases.

    Here's the summary from the Financial regulator about deposit protection. An awful lot are covered up to €100K anyway.

    http://www.itsyourmoney.ie/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=100&nID=153&aID=620


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,887 ✭✭✭Dubh Geannain


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Other banks are covered in other jurisdictions. Over 90% are under €100k AFAIK. NIB have requested to be part of the scheme and I think they've been allowed to. Brian Lenihan appears to be open to considering individual cases.

    Here's the summary from the Financial regulator about deposit protection. An awful lot are covered up to €100K anyway.

    http://www.itsyourmoney.ie/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=100&nID=153&aID=620

    I knew that alright. It's more the larger depositers I'd be worried about. The 90% of customers that are covered would not have 90% of the banks overall value of deposits. I think it'd hurt just as much when much larger investors move their money.

    Edit: Here's the link for the Northern Rock story which would have some similarities albeit Britons aren't covered up to €100k
    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=452406&in_page_id=2&ito=1565


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    I think, at the moment, it depends on the perceived security of the institution where they have their funds. I think the bill itself takes account of that and is in part designed to calm the nerves of large depositors who already have funds in the "guaranteed" Irish institutions. There is always the possibility of funds flowing in from outside of Ireland as our banks might be considered "safer".

    There is some debate in Britain now in light of what we are proposing, about increasing the guarantee there. The problem in that respect is the sheer size of UK banks.

    EDIT: Here's a link to the bill, 11 pages of it and the shorter 2 page Explanatory Memorandum. Varadker compared the bill to the Lisbon treaty. :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Boggle


    Does this mean that any bank sitting on a large loan for a developer, and who could not afford to foreclose before now, will now be falling over themselves to foreclose in the 2 year window??

    If so then prepare for house prices to hit rock bottom in the very short term as these developers scramble to offload assets.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    So this means now that the banks will start lending again??? I doubt it!


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    In light of the Irish banking guarantee, the EU Competition Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, has just announced an urgent review of several recent banking bailouts, notably that of German bank German bank WestLB, but has given the go-ahead to the UK to nationalise Bradford and Bingley. The Irish action is said to have serious competition concerns for other EU members, and may possibly be overturned by immediate directive, should it be passed by national legislation.

    Hmmm...... maybe its not a done deal afterall?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    Irish Govt guarantees banks for two years

    This is discriminating against those of us who keep our savings under the mattress.


Advertisement
Advertisement