David McWilliams is a tosser, here's why...

starbelgrade · 02-06-2010 07:07PM

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

What the f*ck is a hippocite?

kraggy · 02-06-2010 07:10PM

starbelgrade wrote: »

What the f*ck is a hippocite?

It's a hippopotamus plebicite.

UltimateMale · 02-06-2010 07:18PM

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

He has stated several times since that he called for the Govt to support the banks at the time so that we didn't have a run on the banks and go the way like Iceland did. However when the banking crisis stablised several months later, he than started to call on the Govt to wind down Anglo etc as it's a basket case and throwing tens of billions more into it is a waste.

McWilliam's was spot on regarding the neccessity of proping up the banks in the immediate at the time.

dotsman · 02-06-2010 08:34PM

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 - Fully
2 - Fully (although I disagree with it. As popular a large discount is with the public, it becomes self-defeating if it doesn't allow the banks back on their feet)
3 - To some degree. We are borrowing from the bond markets at the moment. The ECB is ready to buy government bonds if required.
4 - As per his plan. Although they are cleaning themselves of the large loans, they still have issues with the smaller personal/business loans/mortgages
5 - To some degree. Although the main faces have been removed, some of the background senior people remain

Din Taylor · 02-06-2010 08:37PM

Actually think he is quite good tbh. Agree with all the posters saying hat NAMA isn't a bad bank or based on the Scandinavian model. These only provide a guarantee for the deposit holders. On the other hand, NAMA provides a guarantee to bondholders and shareholders. This is plainly ridiculous as the required return for bondholders and shareholders contains a default risk remium.

skelliser · 02-06-2010 11:00PM

So just to clarify:

The op hasn't a clue about what he's talking about.

dasdog · 02-06-2010 11:51PM

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.

anniehoo · 03-06-2010 12:26AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

What the f*ck is a hippocite?

Sometimes you're worth a "thanks" and sometimes you're not.

Bob Z · 03-06-2010 01:28AM

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.

yes I read about that article. But didn't lenihan blame mcwilliams for making it up or breaking a confindence or something? Maybe that's why you couldn't find the article.

Bob Z · 03-06-2010 01:30AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

What the f*ck is a hippocite?

someone who takes the hipporitic oath

thebigbiffo · 03-06-2010 09:44AM

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?

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.

this bad bank senario had been taken on in a form not too dissimilar to what he advocated in the first place. i know there are some differences. but taking into account the quoted article, then this...

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2010/06/02/nama-just-a-bailout-for-the-professional-classes

...is it not the case he's just changing his story to suit the public mood, thereby being popularist?

this guy has the luxury of being fluid in his suggestions because he's not actually running the country and seems to change his mind and opinions as often as he likes.

just consider the this basic argument: first article 'i want a bad bank of some form to manage this massive, underperforming debts'... second article 'this bad bank (that i suggested in a form in the first place) is simply bailing out the rich'. now who did he think would benefit when he suggested it in the first place? I dont have a half billion in land in dublin i can't develop, he knew the story then and he knows it now. he acts like he some kind of prophet of ecomonics, but if was running the place he'd be so indecisive we already be gone under.

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

Banned Account · 03-06-2010 09:57AM

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 · 03-06-2010 10:03AM

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.

i sat beside him on a flight from amsterdam once...he has no control over his kids either, which adds to his tosser level. but then again i was stoned...and i dont take kindly to screaming kids bouncing around me while i'm trying to eat my ryanair pizza

whatawaster · 03-06-2010 10:17AM

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

I hope we soon have a Minister for Finance who doesn't have to

Fuhrer · 03-06-2010 10:20AM

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

You could say that about a lot of Irish 'comedians' too though, couldn't you?

At least when they tell a bad joke, its through an air of utterly dispondant desperation to be liked.

Rather then spewing out some some utterly pathetic smug tripe then sitting there thinking "Yeah, im a triple threat, Economist, Writer and Wit" with a look that says I just pissed myself and it feels ****ing great.

Fuhrer · 03-06-2010 10:22AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

What the f*ck is a hippocite?

Its when you're referencing a fact or piece of information by using a horse.

thebigbiffo · 03-06-2010 10:25AM

whatawaster wrote: »

I hope we soon have a Minister for Finance who doesn't have to

i think it's fair enough that he was out seeking advice from people

just not mcwilliams

thebigbiffo · 03-06-2010 10:29AM

skelliser wrote: »

So just to clarify:

The op hasn't a clue about what he's talking about.

seeing as you were so quick to post that, maybe when you've read the thread through again you could explain?

parker kent · 03-06-2010 04:26PM

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.

In fairness, if you put "David McWilliams" into google, the first result is his site with all of his articles.

faceman · 03-06-2010 05:11PM

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.

skelliser · 03-06-2010 05:22PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

seeing as you were so quick to post that, maybe when you've read the thread through again you could explain?

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.

dotsman · 03-06-2010 08:21PM

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.

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.

dasdog · 03-06-2010 08:56PM

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.

They are separate entites which I'm not blurring. I expect coverage of the guarantee which didn't cost us "one red cent" to be scaled back focussing on deposit holders upon the next expiry date. It was risky, rushed and I agree it did its job at the time while NAMA will quango on for another 15/20 years in an attempt to break even letting subordinated bond holders off the hook at our expense with no attempt of any renegotiation.

enniscorthy · 03-06-2010 11:03PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TibA0sQQZw8

thebigbiffo · 04-06-2010 12:36PM

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.

the point is that his original article quite clearly shows mcwilliams backing a bad bank idea - which, for all it's faults or your opinion on whether it will work or not - is what we got. so it's not nonsensical - it's in black and white as far as i'm concerned.

how is NAMA not a bad bank? how about you explain (because I already have), because i dont think YOU really know what you're talking about. in general terms - how is an institution which is taking on a shed load of underperforming (bad) loans NOT a bad bank?

on your assumtions about my politics - i dont care what you think. i'm as entitled to my opinion as you are and can post whatever i like on boards. i'm not mad about FF but i think they're no less useless than most other politicians, and i've stated on another thread that i believe biffo should have resigned, so wtf you talkin about? i think you're the sheep tbh, people are so wound up about the recession, bank crisis etc they can't objectively see that the mess would have been made by any party who was in power and FF are trying to fix it, and in my opinion doing a reasonable job. anglo should be allowed go under...other than that, i agree with most of their other actions - including NAMA. and your 'most people with any degree of sense' know that only time will tell whether it will work. the fact is, if you sit on these 'assets' long enough they should increase in value. a report from standard and poors recently reported property prices are actually TOO LOW at the moment, so there is some hard evidence out there that these debts can clear themselves given time. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/0602/1224271676405.html

Bob Z · 04-06-2010 05:57PM

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.

But he was saying there was going to be a housing collapse for years. How is that populist?

faceman · 08-06-2010 03:55PM

Bob Z wrote: »

But he was saying there was going to be a housing collapse for years. How is that populist?

He predicted the crash coming every year. That was the issue.

ordinary_girl · 08-06-2010 04:59PM

There was no need to qualify it past "David McWilliams is a tosser". It's just fact by this stage.

moonpurple · 08-06-2010 05:06PM

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 both

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2010/06/07/kill-anglo-to-save-ireland
:pac:

thebigbiffo · 08-06-2010 05:11PM

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 both

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2010/06/07/kill-anglo-to-save-ireland
:pac:

i actually love david mcwilliams...he wants anglo burned, so do i...we're cut from the same cloth

:rolleyes:

David McWilliams is a tosser, here's why...

Comments