thebigbiffo wrote: » if you've no interest in mcwilliams being a hippocite...find another thread. cos it's fairly obvious what this was gonna be about
starbelgrade wrote: » What the f*ck is a hippocite?
thebigbiffo wrote: » please tell me someone remembers that McWilliams was the first person in this country to suggest NAMA (he just called it a bad bank) was the way to go to help our financial system. he called for it very early on in the banking/property crisis in an article in the indo. i showed it to everyone in the office and thought it was a great idea. he went through in detail using the norweigian model as a base for the argument. the f'ucking second it was taken up an an official/policy level he started writing against it and still is, even though it was his idea in the first place! and he never once refers back to this and gives any explanation why he changed his mind - he just convieniently ignores it! so it's proven...he's a tosser! seriously, i'd like to know if anyone remembers reading that
whatawaster wrote: » Here, from February 2009, is David McWilliams plan:http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2009/02/22/my-plan-to-save-the-country 1. Create a ‘financial skip’ and throw all the bad debts of all the banks into it. This bank will be given the mandate to work out the bad debts over ten years. It should be staffed by the best liquidators and recovery experts in the country. These are people who know how to get value out of an asset. They know, not how to lend, but how to sell. Today, everyone is talking about debts, but there are real assets in this financial skip and, over time, these assets -if managed properly – will become valuable. In effect, the new bank will be the Irish property market. It will control the price and control development. 2.The skip has to buy the assets from the banks. It must do this at a deep, deep discount. In reality, this figure could be as low as 20 per cent of the original price. Let us assume the bad bank needs a huge whack of cash; where are we going to get the stuff? Where could we get €40 billion? 3. Here’s where we play the EMU card. We go to the European Central Bank (ECB) and say: ‘‘You lend us the cash. We, after all, gave up our interest rate and exchange rate policy to join the euro, now you have to help us out. You have to prove that the EU is a community of nations, in reality. Show us some practical solidarity. Otherwise we default and undermine the euro.” In addition, the ECB is already committed to the Irish financial system. It is drip-feeding money into our contaminated banks every day, keeping them alive. We should suggest they lend us the money at 4 per cent for ten years. This is money that the ECB is spending on the financing of our banks anyway as the lender of last resort, so it should not matter to it. In fact, lending to the solution should be much smarter than lending to the problem. The ECB would be crazy not to go for this. We then have money for ten years at 4 per cent with which to work out bad loans. 4.The old banks are now clean. They are free of contamination and they can go about raising money from the market, such as our own pension funds, through the normal channels, like rights issues. This means that they can start lending again to good businesses. The old banks pay the new bad bank a fee for managing their old debts and dealing with their old clients. If the new bank charges 7 per cent for the service, the old banks need to provision for this charge over the next ten years. This means that their profits will be affected, and they must adjust their costs at the beginning of every year to account for the charge. But 7 per cent of €40 billion is manageable. It could operate like a bank tax. The state then makes money on this plan -a s it would be getting the difference between what the bad bank charges and what the old, forgiven banks pay. So it gets tax revenue of 3 per cent of €40 billion every year -or €1.2 billion. You can build a lot of schools with that sort of bread. 5. Obviously all senior management of the banks must be fired right now to facilitate this financial renaissance. How much of this has been implemented by NAMA?
1. Create a ‘financial skip’ and throw all the bad debts of all the banks into it. This bank will be given the mandate to work out the bad debts over ten years. It should be staffed by the best liquidators and recovery experts in the country. These are people who know how to get value out of an asset. They know, not how to lend, but how to sell. Today, everyone is talking about debts, but there are real assets in this financial skip and, over time, these assets -if managed properly – will become valuable. In effect, the new bank will be the Irish property market. It will control the price and control development. 2.The skip has to buy the assets from the banks. It must do this at a deep, deep discount. In reality, this figure could be as low as 20 per cent of the original price. Let us assume the bad bank needs a huge whack of cash; where are we going to get the stuff? Where could we get €40 billion? 3. Here’s where we play the EMU card. We go to the European Central Bank (ECB) and say: ‘‘You lend us the cash. We, after all, gave up our interest rate and exchange rate policy to join the euro, now you have to help us out. You have to prove that the EU is a community of nations, in reality. Show us some practical solidarity. Otherwise we default and undermine the euro.” In addition, the ECB is already committed to the Irish financial system. It is drip-feeding money into our contaminated banks every day, keeping them alive. We should suggest they lend us the money at 4 per cent for ten years. This is money that the ECB is spending on the financing of our banks anyway as the lender of last resort, so it should not matter to it. In fact, lending to the solution should be much smarter than lending to the problem. The ECB would be crazy not to go for this. We then have money for ten years at 4 per cent with which to work out bad loans. 4.The old banks are now clean. They are free of contamination and they can go about raising money from the market, such as our own pension funds, through the normal channels, like rights issues. This means that they can start lending again to good businesses. The old banks pay the new bad bank a fee for managing their old debts and dealing with their old clients. If the new bank charges 7 per cent for the service, the old banks need to provision for this charge over the next ten years. This means that their profits will be affected, and they must adjust their costs at the beginning of every year to account for the charge. But 7 per cent of €40 billion is manageable. It could operate like a bank tax. The state then makes money on this plan -a s it would be getting the difference between what the bad bank charges and what the old, forgiven banks pay. So it gets tax revenue of 3 per cent of €40 billion every year -or €1.2 billion. You can build a lot of schools with that sort of bread. 5. Obviously all senior management of the banks must be fired right now to facilitate this financial renaissance.
thebigbiffo wrote: » i've searched the net to try find the article but i can't. trust me, it was there and i was kind of hoping someone else could back me up that he wrote that article - the details on what was in there are correct as above. i think he did advocate the gaurantee alright and i'm sure he never advised pumping money into anglo.
whatawaster wrote: » Here, from February 2009, is David McWilliams plan:http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2009/02/22/my-plan-to-save-the-country How much of this has been implemented by NAMA?
Fitzcaraldo wrote: » As far as I can see, part of the reason we are here in the first place is that we had far too many bad banks and not enough good ones. The reason he is a tosser is due to his affected accent and floppy gingerness. Mostly.
thebigbiffo wrote: » i for one hope lenihan never decides to call round for a cup of tea on a stormy, windswept night to this lads gaff again
Jeff_Lebowski wrote: » You could say that about a lot of Irish 'comedians' too though, couldn't you?
whatawaster wrote: » I hope we soon have a Minister for Finance who doesn't have to
skelliser wrote: » So just to clarify: The op hasn't a clue about what he's talking about.
thebigbiffo wrote: » first off, that's the article. thanks! i'd like to say i'm not lazy, i did have a fairly good look around for it (ok ok, not good enough) but either way - my point stays the same.
thebigbiffo wrote: » seeing as you were so quick to post that, maybe when you've read the thread through again you could explain?
dasdog wrote: » Subordinated debt is a risky asset, which was bought by rich mates of the banks. These are rich men’s IOUs. Bank of Ireland alone issued €15bn of these IOUs. They should not be underwritten by taxpayers. This is a classic example of poor people subsidising millionaires. It is wrong. Key word in bold. These are the people, the gambling investors, who we in the form of NAMA are bailing out. I don't think McWilliams ever stated that people who invested in these risky bonds should have the stake they gambled and lost on, returned in full. This unfortunately is what every tax paying gobshyte in Ireland is going to be doing under NAMA. He was way off the mark in his suggestion we should leave the eurozone however.
dotsman wrote: » I think you're getting NAMA and the Guarantee mixed up. They're very different things. The problem with the guarantee was that it was rushed, and of course we can pick holes in it now. The problem at the time was - that there was no time! Money was flying out of the banks, and it was only a matter of days before Ireland collapsed. The guarantee need to be bold and assure people/investors that there was no need to panic. In that sense, the guarantee worked perfectly. The fallout, however, is the fact that certain instruments which, as you say, should not have been included, were. Likewise, Anglo/Irish Nationwide etc could probably have been excluded had we had the time to investigate them first.
skelliser wrote: » Its simple: Your attempting to smear McWilliams with nonsensical accusations. You clearly dont have a clue or are being obtuse about NAMA. NAMA is not a bad bank/good bank plan as you have stated. McWilliams has clearly set out from day one that NAMA will be a failure. Actually most people with any degree of sense know it will be a failure. Only die hard FF disciples and followers of lenny think it will be a success. On another thread you have stated your support for Fianna Fail, add to that your apt username, we can thus surmise your political affiliations. Fianna Fail are good at spinning things in there favour, they are very clever at it, your attempt to do same is pretty pathetic. I suggest you should go back to the Fianna Fail school of bull**** and learn from your masters what they want you to say.
faceman wrote: » Cant stand McWilliams, never have. A populist. No solutions, just problems, and any solutions he does suggest are never balanced. I could get into a bigger rant about him but i wont, again.
Bob Z wrote: » But he was saying there was going to be a housing collapse for years. How is that populist?
moonpurple wrote: » i suppose people can form their own view.. I do not have any great emotions connected to david mcwilliams but he certainly seems to HATE fianna fail which may make him a tosser for some:rolleyes: if I had to choose between him and the OP of this thread i would choose mcwilliams though based on the writings of bothhttp://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2010/06/07/kill-anglo-to-save-ireland :pac:
