Greens favour wind-down of Anglo

Scofflaw · 30-08-2010 12:15PM #1

The Green Party's finance spokesman, Dan Boyle, has said the party is leaning towards the position that the most cost effective way of dealing with Anglo Irish Bank is to bring about a quicker wind-down of the bank.

...

A spokesperson for the Department of Finance said the department and other relevant authorities were in talks with the European Commission on the future of Anglo.

The spokesperson said the options for resolving the Anglo issue included the management's good bank/bad bank proposal and the potential for an orderly wind-down of the bank, adding that the Government's overriding objective was to minimise the cost to the State.

As far as I know, the Commission may have made some noises about a state-supported bank operating in the Irish market, but the ruling on the bank rescue plan isn't expected until next month.

Some good summary from the SBP:

Above all else, in recent weeks, investors have become increasingly concerned about just how much money Anglo Irish Bank will consume.

This took centre stage a few weeks ago, as the EU cleared the government to put in an extra €10 billion on top of the €14 billion-plus already committed, a total of over €24 billion. Anxieties were fuelled by the Standard &Poor’s estimates that, in fact, Anglo might cost up to €35 billion.

A key issue now for the government is to clarify once and for all the likely cost of Anglo, something it will only be able to do when the EU Commission rules on the bank’s proposed rescue plan next month.

Much of the public debate on Anglo Irish Bank can be summed up in one phrase:

‘‘Why are we planning to spend €24 billion to rescue this bank?"

Putting the question this way shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

The vast bulk of the money which has been spent - and will be spent - is not going to ‘rescue’ Anglo Irish Bank.

It is going to clear up the extraordinary mess which the bank’s practices of recent years have left behind. A small part of the total - perhaps €2 billion -might be used to provide capital to a revived and much smaller Anglo, depending on what the EU decides, but the vast bulk of the cash is to clean up the mess.

The fundamental problem with Anglo is the gap between its assets and its liabilities.

The full extent of this won’t be known until all the losses are transferred to Nama and a full examination is completed by the Financial Regulator of the non-Nama loans, but the government has estimated the gap to be filled by the state at around €24 billion.

and for those of us who like this kind of thing, an explanation of what "subordinated bondholders are":

Somebody has to fill this gap. So let’s look at who might do it.

Are there liabilities which Anglo can decide not to pay?

First in line when a bank loses money are the shareholders.

In the case of Anglo, they have already been completely wiped out.

Next in line to fill the hole in a bank’s balance sheet are other investors called subordinated bondholders.

This is the point at which most people’s eyes start to glaze over.

But it is straightforward enough.

These are investors who lent the bank money and accepted a higher rate of interest in return for being next in line to take a hit after the shareholders.

The amount of subordinated debt left in Anglo, according to its 2009 annual results, is €2.4 billion.

The EU Commission will have a big say in what happens here, but it appears likely that none - or very little - of this money will be repaid.

However, it is only one tenth of the overall government estimate of the Anglo bill. After the subordinated bondholders are another group.

These are called ‘senior debt’ holders.

These are also investors who loan money to a bank.

They accept a lower interest rate than subordinated debt holders on the basis that they are taking less risk.

Full article from the SBP is here: http://www.sbpost.ie/newsfeatures/the-key-hurdles-now-facing-ireland-51323.html

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations · 30-08-2010 12:23PM

So what? Now we get revisionism from Willie O'Dea and FF - he was on Pat Kenny saying that their banking plan had always been flexible to change. The backtracking from a failed Anglo plan to a faster wind down which was suggested by others over a year ago, without any apologising or admittance that they got it very wrong, is pointless - they guaranteed this private debt, the Greens made these decisions too, regardless of how they want to position themselves now.

wiseguy · 30-08-2010 12:27PM

Are the Green rats finally deserting the sinking ship?

Cookie_Monster · 30-08-2010 01:07PM

People favour winding down of Greens

Liam Byrne · 30-08-2010 02:49PM

Too little, too late. The damage is done.

They should have thought this way before they voted on the ridiculous plan and it bankrupted us.

The_Honeybadger · 30-08-2010 03:56PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Too little, too late. The damage is done.

They should have thought this way before they voted on the ridiculous plan and it bankrupted us.

+1 a pathetic attempt to regain some credibility / popularity when it has been clear to all and sundry for some time that the bank bailout was nothing more than daylight robbery of the nations taxpayers. I can't wait to see the smug grin wiped off Eamon Ryans face when they are obliterated in the next election.

Scofflaw · 30-08-2010 05:21PM

Results as expected, pretty much. Mind you, I don't give them any kudos for this myself - it looks like they're simply going with the flow of information as it emerges from Anglo and NAMA, and the rumbles that emerge from the Commission.

cordially,
Scofflaw

unit 1 · 30-08-2010 05:30PM

FF's always eat your greens.:D

skelliser · 30-08-2010 05:37PM

So they have just admitted to wasting how many billions?

The last 2 years all this gov. has to show for itself is:

a ban on stag hunting which only affects one hunt

NAMA

Anglo

gob****es!

danbohan · 30-08-2010 06:16PM

skelliser wrote: »

So they have just admitted to wasting how many billions?

The last 2 years all this gov. has to show for itself is:

gob****es!

wrong!
we are the gob:::tes for tolerating them !

RealityCheck · 30-08-2010 09:11PM

I think people are giving the greens too much credit. From what I can see Alan Dukes and his fellow crew at Anglo submitted a business plan to the EU Commission for approval. That plan was to deal with what remained on the balance sheet after NAMA. Their idea is to separate it into a good bank and bad bank. The good bank would take deposits, good performing loans and would recieve a capital injection from the state. The rest of the banks bad loans would be then set aside into a special vehicle for a winddown, whereby the state attempt to claim back as much money as possible. The EU Commission appear to be uneasy about keeping Anglo open as a going concern and don't want to see good money wasted in the new good bank. So they say wind down the whole operation (good and bad). The only real difference between the two is that we dont have to recapitalise any new bank (probably not that huge an amount of money in relative terms anyway), but we still would be on the hook for any losses that occur during the wind down of the old Anglo.

So all in all I don't think whether they wind down the whole thing or keep some parts of it as a going concern will make altogether that much of a difference. We still will be throwing good money after bad putting money into a black hole (to keep bondholders happy). Unless the Greens have partial default on their new agenda.

RealityCheck · 30-08-2010 09:15PM

mickeyk wrote: »

+1 a pathetic attempt to regain some credibility / popularity when it has been clear to all and sundry for some time that the bank bailout was nothing more than daylight robbery of the nations taxpayers. I can't wait to see the smug grin wiped off Eamon Ryans face when they are obliterated in the next election.

In reality its only window dressing. They'll still be throwing good money into the cesspit that is Anglo for a long time to come, regardless of whether the whole operation is wound down or not.

yermanoffthetv · 30-08-2010 09:33PM

mickeyk wrote: »

I can't wait to see the smug grin wiped off Eamon Ryans face when they are obliterated in the next election.

I hate that smug git :mad: lol I cant wait either, ill celebrate by dumping all my recycleable in the black bin for a week.

FF want it wound down over 10 years. Greens say asap so im guessing its still going to take at least 5 years? how much more is this f**king fiasco goin to cost by the end of it! In the mean time I see sweet f.a. being done to force banks to start lending again.:mad::mad::mad:

Liam Byrne · 30-08-2010 09:39PM

RealityCheck wrote: »

From what I can see Alan Dukes and his fellow crew at Anglo submitted a business plan to the EU Commission for approval.

This would be the same Alan Dukes who was supposedly put in there to serve the public interest, and once in there turned on Shane Ross and told him to mind his own business ? Newsflash, Mr Dukes : it is (unfortunately) our business, and we're paying your inflated and unjustified wages.

If only the Greens had seen sense back when they had a vote on this fiasco.

Imagine - they had a chance to save us billions and they blew it.

McDougal · 30-08-2010 09:55PM

FF will offer them some increased rights for badgers to shut them up

30-08-2010 10:27PM

The Cabbage Party strikes again! dullards

MrDarcy · 30-08-2010 10:40PM

I'm literally laughing my arse off here looking at this being discussed on TV3 right now. 38 billion, 28 billon, there is no limit to what Anglo is losing simply because as it moves loans off it's books into NAMA, more bad loans are being generated up through the bank as companies close down and loans are defaulted upon. NAMA is not an option for many of these bad debts, many Anglo loans are not backed up by assets, don't forget in the madness of the boom that Anglo was enjoying exponential growth, loans were given out to property businesses for everything and absolutely anything. Flashy cars, "working capital" overdrafts, helicopters, overdraft extentions and rolled over loans for flashy weddings, "start-up" loans, you couldn't make an accurate list of the different types of bad debt that is on the Anglo books, these bad debts are not backed up with any assets.

As for the formation of a business plan, a business plan is just that, a plan. It is a strictly theorical set of working assumptions and aspirations that are relatively meaningless in the shifting sands of everyday business reality.

johnnyskeleton · 30-08-2010 10:41PM

I think the Green TDs knew what they were getting into as soon as they entered government with FF. If I recall correctly, they got a major backlash by the media and their supporters - the main party didn't want to join FF but the parliamentary party voted to do so anyway.

Clearly the members of the Green parliamentary party realised that they had two options - wallow in opposition for a few more years building up the party across the country, or else have a jolly in government for 5 years and destroy their party as a by product.

So in a way I think the backlash against the Green party itself is unfortunate as they were, if you like, hijacked by their cowboy TDs. It's a shame really because a proper green party would be good for Ireland, but instead John Gormley, Trevor Sergeant, Eamon Ryan, Ciaran Cuffe, Paul Gogarty and Mary White were the 6 individuals who deserve our ire, not the Green party itself, although it's a bit disappointing that the Patricia McKenna party didn't really get launced - that would have been fun.

Scofflaw · 30-08-2010 11:12PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think the Green TDs knew what they were getting into as soon as they entered government with FF. If I recall correctly, they got a major backlash by the media and their supporters - the main party didn't want to join FF but the parliamentary party voted to do so anyway.

Clearly the members of the Green parliamentary party realised that they had two options - wallow in opposition for a few more years building up the party across the country, or else have a jolly in government for 5 years and destroy their party as a by product.

So in a way I think the backlash against the Green party itself is unfortunate as they were, if you like, hijacked by their cowboy TDs. It's a shame really because a proper green party would be good for Ireland, but instead John Gormley, Trevor Sergeant, Eamon Ryan, Ciaran Cuffe, Paul Gogarty and Mary White were the 6 individuals who deserve our ire, not the Green party itself, although it's a bit disappointing that the Patricia McKenna party didn't really get launced - that would have been fun.

No, the members voted for it:

Green Party members have voted by over 86% to go into Government with Fianna Fáil.

Of the 510 members who voted, 441 voted to accept the deal after studying the draft programme for government.

67 voted against and there were two spoiled votes.

Trevor Sargent has resigned as leader of the party following tonight's vote.

I suspect they may have voted for it because, let's face it, the Greens aren't ever going to be a major party in Ireland, and there's no guarantee Fine Gael will ever win a GE. Even if the party is reduced to no TDs at the next GE, the question may well be whether it was worth sacrificing yet more time on the opposition benches for the chance to get something done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MrDarcy · 30-08-2010 11:24PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, the members voted for it:

I suspect they may have voted for it because, let's face it, the Greens aren't ever going to be a major party in Ireland, and there's no guarantee Fine Gael will ever win a GE. Even if the party is reduced to no TDs at the next GE, the question may well be whether it was worth sacrificing yet more time on the opposition benches for the chance to get something done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

There's no point in having eco friendly lightbulbs and parts of the Dublin Mountains off limits to quad bikes and scramblers when the country is haemoragging jobs.

Answer me this... What is the Green Party policy on the unemployment crisis in this country???

McDougal · 30-08-2010 11:31PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

the question may well be whether it was worth sacrificing yet more time on the opposition benches for the chance to get something done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What did they get done and was it worth 5 years of Fianna Fáil?

johnnyskeleton · 30-08-2010 11:31PM

MrDarcy wrote: »

Answer me this... What is the Green Party policy on the unemployment crisis in this country???

Getting people to work in the "Green Economy". It's like the smart economy only, you know, better for the environment.

Scofflaw · 30-08-2010 11:50PM

MrDarcy wrote: »

There's no point in having eco friendly lightbulbs and parts of the Dublin Mountains off limits to quad bikes and scramblers when the country is haemoragging jobs.

Answer me this... What is the Green Party policy on the unemployment crisis in this country???

Personally, I voted Green for their policies on the environment. Not having quad bikes tear up parts of the Dublin Mountains is a good thing whatever unemployment levels are, and bringing in eco-lightbulbs is hardly going to throw people out of work either, so I don't really see the relevance of the Minister for the Environment or an environmental party's policy on unemployment. They're not in a position to do anything about it either way.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

What did they get done and was it worth 5 years of Fianna Fáil?

http://www.greenparty.ie/government/achievements_in_government/rolling_list_of_achievements

Not without its purely political claims. As to whether it was worth 5 years of Fianna Fáil...I don't know. The Greens weren't originally required to make up the numbers, and now they are, the feeling is that while Fianna Fáil may be damaged, the Greens are destroyed. Fianna Fáil are now over a barrel and require Green support - should the party give that up in favour of probably being wiped out at a GE at worst, and at best being a very minor part of a Fine Gael-Labour coalition (or even a Fianna Fáil coalition!)?

Tough one.

I appreciate that most non-Green voters won't think the party's achievements in government are worth much - but then, that's why they're not Green voters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

skelliser · 30-08-2010 11:56PM

i say good riddance!

A party that spends the guts of 2 months wasting dail time on one solitary stag hunt whilst we are going thru the worst economic resession in the history of the state, 1/2 million on the dole, dozens of sme's closing each week and our brightest emigrating once again, deserve to be consigned to history. Ancient history.

hinault · 31-08-2010 08:34AM

The Irish version of the Green Party is the issue here.

Gormley, Cuffe, Ryan and the rest of them made a grab for power and willingly bought in to the FF economic policy and stayed quiet even as the warning bells were blasting.

And remember folks not only will we end up paying for their economic incompetence - we'll be paying their Minister pensions also.

wiseguy · 31-08-2010 08:58AM

McDougal wrote: »

FF will offer them some increased rights for badgers to shut them up

It is interesting how the Greens care more about animals than citizens of this country

jmayo · 31-08-2010 08:59AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Results as expected, pretty much. Mind you, I don't give them any kudos for this myself - it looks like they're simply going with the flow of information as it emerges from Anglo and NAMA, and the rumbles that emerge from the Commission.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What do you give them Kudos for ?
Please enlighten us of their acheivements and why they are worth them supporting ff bankrupting the country to the tune of 60 plus billion.
Note I am including recapitalisation of Anglo & INBS and the cost of purchasing their sh**e loans that we are going to be stuck with through NAMA.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This would be the same Alan Dukes who was supposedly put in there to serve the public interest, and once in there turned on Shane Ross and told him to mind his own business ? Newsflash, Mr Dukes : it is (unfortunately) our business, and we're paying your inflated and unjustified wages.

If only the Greens had seen sense back when they had a vote on this fiasco.

Imagine - they had a chance to save us billions and they blew it.

It was a dsigrace to watch that bast*** treat Ross (and by extension every taxpayer in this country) the way he did.
Arrogant f***er whose Tallaght strategy legacy was wiped out with his smug grin.

Scofflaw wrote: »

...
I suspect they may have voted for it because, let's face it, the Greens aren't ever going to be a major party in Ireland, and there's no guarantee Fine Gael will ever win a GE. Even if the party is reduced to no TDs at the next GE, the question may well be whether it was worth sacrificing yet more time on the opposition benches for the chance to get something done.
...

What a price we have paid for the something they wanted to get done. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw wrote: »

Personally, I voted Green for their policies on the environment. Not having quad bikes tear up parts of the Dublin Mountains is a good thing whatever unemployment levels are, and bringing in eco-lightbulbs is hardly going to throw people out of work either, so I don't really see the relevance of the Minister for the Environment or an environmental party's policy on unemployment. They're not in a position to do anything about it either way.

http://www.greenparty.ie/government/achievements_in_government/rolling_list_of_achievements

I appreciate that most non-Green voters won't think the party's achievements in government are worth much - but then, that's why they're not Green voters.

So will you vote green at the next election ?

Actually they are in a position that can influence employment.

If they push for cuts in government service costs rather than justify hikes in fuel and energy costs they can help employment.

Lots of ex green voters reckon their acheivements aren't worth much either. :rolleyes:
PS I didn't vote green because I reckoned they were anti rural and against things like nuclear

wiseguy · 31-08-2010 09:06AM

jmayo wrote: »

PS I didn't vote green because I reckoned they were anti rural and against things like nuclear

They do not mind importing nuclear energy tho', when their much admired windmills which are destroying our countryside views are not working...

It gets worse than that, they want to ban GM crops from Ireland, and make it a GM free zone, in the process killing any related scientific research, so much for "Knowledge economy" :rolleyes:
I suppose once that is implemented the will shoot any animals and birds crossing our UK border

in case they are GM contaminated and proceed to build a wall to prevent pollen from UK and EU falling on our GM free soil

Green "dogma" and hypocrisy really boggles the mind.

The faster these jokers become extinct from Irish politics the better off the people and the environment will be. We do not need leftie fascists in Green uniform running this country.

Shane H Morris, Deparment of Biochemistry, UCC wrote:

Sunday Tribune (Ireland), Nov 22, 2009 http://www.tribune.ie

I would like to bring to your attention an area what makes a mockery of Ireland’s so-called “knowledge economy”. Innovation and knowledge are words that are repeated often in the new programme for government.

However, in practice, it is clear the government has turned its back on the scientific search for knowledge by ruling out research trials on GM crops. This Luddite stance effectively throws the baby out with the bath water by refusing to even research the issue. This commitment goes against EU law, contradicts advice from the Irish chief science advisor, short changes Irish farmers and is a sad attempt to mislead the Irish public.

The ludicrous nature of this proposal is reflected in several facts. Firstly, EU regulations govern research trials of GM crops so it is not currently legally possible for the Irish government to ban such research. This was highlighted by Fianna Fail’s Noel Dempsey when, as environment minister, he accepted as government policy an independent public consultation report which ruled out a ban on crop trials in Ireland stating that it would not be legally possible to ban them. The report also warned that, if Ireland rejects or ignores GM biotechnology, it will not remain attractive to investors in high-tech industries or competitive in food production.

Secondly, the current government has only recently drafted specific wording on research trials of GM crops in their Environment Liability Act which will regulate GM crops cultivated in Ireland under EU law. Such a move seems strange if they believe a programme for government can ban such research.

Thirdly, banning GM crop research trials would contradict the government’s own Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation (2006 to 2013) which identified the importance of building a capability in agri-biotechnology in order to assess, harness and adopt new technological innovations.

This goal will be impossible if GM crop research trials are banned.

In addition, it should be noted that the IFA, in their “Meeting Challenges” policy submission to government, stated: “Provided that the use and release of GMOs meet all the detailed regulatory requirements, IFA’s assessment of GM technology is that, like science and technology generally, it can have many positive implications for agriculture and food production.” This perspective was supported by professor Patrick Cunningham, Ireland’s chief science advisor, who recently issued a report to the current government on GM foods. The report looked at safety, benefits and risks, and highlighted that GM technology was of value to Ireland. Public research into GM crop development is seen to be of growing importance for many countries, including our EU partners. On the global stage GM crop research is seen as a key technology platform. Cuba, the ultimate public sector state, has had 59 GM field trials. China has just committed to investing the equivalent of $3,500m of new public funds into GM crop research.

The new programme for government’s shortsighted, scientifically unsupported GM policy, developed without any scientific, stakeholder or public consultation, now excludes the basic research and development tool of GM crop field trials. This puts Ireland at the back of the class in terms of EU research as scientific GM research trials in the EU now number over 2,400 and have reported no negative impacts on health or the environment. France, the bastion of good food, has sanctioned over 587 GM crop trials.

Fianna Fáil, who previously allowed research trials of GM crops in Ireland, have conceded to the à la carte scientific illiteracy of the Greens. Like most irrational positions it is one of contradiction. While Irish publicly funded GM technology to prevent potato blight sits on a lab shelf, the current government is happy to let over 250,000 pounds of toxic fungicide be used annually on Irish potatoes against blight. Greens in government elsewhere in Europe have allowed GM crop research trials. So while the programme for government proclaims “Ireland will be a test-bed for emerging technologies”, when it comes to agri-food innovation, the government is happy to hide under the bed. It makes a joke of Ireland’s claim to be a leading science location.

Shane H Morris, Deparment of Biochemistry, Lee Maltings, Prospect Row, University College Cork

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not having quad bikes tear up parts of the Dublin Mountains is a good thing whatever unemployment levels are

So you oppose people ridding in the countryside on quad-bikes which might be a great idea for Tourism sector to explore
Yet you have no issue with 100+ meter turbines dotting our mountains and countryside destroying the views? wonder how many birds these kill

Typical Green snobbery I say :cool:

Scofflaw · 31-08-2010 09:15AM

So will you vote green at the next election ?

On current form - sure. I dare say a lot of non Green voters will be voting non Green again too.

It's not as if I was under the impression that Green policies were popular with most people in the country.

Lots of ex green voters reckon their acheivements aren't worth much either.

Uh-huh. Mostly when one follows that all the way down, though, the "ex green voter" turns out to be someone who gave them a third or fourth preference in a constituency where they were eliminated anyway. There are disgruntled Greens, but it's a much smaller number than it's made out to be, and it's mostly the McKennaite loony wing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

IrishTonyO · 31-08-2010 09:17AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I appreciate that most non-Green voters won't think the party's achievements in government are worth much - but then, that's why they're not Green voters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I voted Green and I don't rate any of their 'achievements'

Scofflaw · 31-08-2010 09:22AM

So you oppose people ridding in the countryside on quad-bikes which might be a great idea for Tourism sector to explore

As opposed to walking in the Dublin Mountains...sure. After all one walker makes enough noise to annoy hundreds of quad bikers, and they tear up the hillsides. Oh, wait, sorry, wrong way round.

Yet you have no issue with 100+ meter turbines dotting our mountains and countryside destroying the views? wonder how many birds these kill

Quite a few, if they're poorly sited. Still, I dare say you'd oppose doing an environmental impact assessment on the basis of "who cares about that green stuff anyway". Which takes me back to my earlier point about green policies never having been particularly popular here.

amused,
Scofflaw

Greens favour wind-down of Anglo

Comments