Sean Quinn - NI Bankruptcy FAIL

gigino · 12-01-2012 01:50AM

twinytwo wrote: »

Again he borrowed money from AI to gamble on their share price...... that was his choice to do, and he lost out.....

He trusted that Anglo Irish bank was being regulated. Thats what the regulator and Central bank was supposed to be doing. He bought shares in Anglo Irish thinking it was a sound bank. He did not realise how crooked all the boyos in the fancy suits - but wearing the green jersey as Seanie Fitzpatrick would say - were.

twinytwo wrote: »

His greed was his own downfall...he wasnt forced to do anything.

He started off his business life driving one truck for himself. His "greed" grew the business and created thousands of jobs. It was Seanie Fitz greed in befriending him to Anglo Irish bank, and the greed of the government and the regulator in allowing Anglo to behave as it did, which was his downfall. Doing business in this poorly regulatred jurisdiction / banana republic was his downfall. None of his investments in the UK, the jurisdiction from where he's from , backfired because the authorities and institutions there are relatively straight.

The culture here - as shown by Haughey and Ahern etc - is cute hoorism.
Its caught up with us. We are not fit to govern ourselves.

Liam Byrne · 12-01-2012 02:25AM

gigino wrote: »

twinytwo wrote: »

Again he borrowed money from AI to gamble on their share price...... that was his choice to do, and he lost out.....

He trusted that Anglo Irish bank was being regulated. Thats what the regulator and Central bank was supposed to be doing. He bought shares in Anglo Irish thinking it was a sound bank. He did not realise how crooked all the boyos in the fancy suits - but wearing the green jersey as Seanie Fitzpatrick would say - were.

twinytwo wrote: »

His greed was his own downfall...he wasnt forced to do anything.

He started off his business life driving one truck for himself. His "greed" grew the business and created thousands of jobs. It was Seanie Fitz greed in befriending him to Anglo Irish bank, and the greed of the government and the regulator in allowing Anglo to behave as it did, which was his downfall. Doing business in this poorly regulatred jurisdiction / banana republic was his downfall. None of his investments in the UK, the jurisdiction from where he's from , backfired because the authorities and institutions there are relatively straight.

The culture here - as shown by Haughey and Ahern etc - is cute hoorism.
Its caught up with us. We are not fit to govern ourselves.

All irrelevant waffle.

What is your opinion of his CURRENT actions, hiving assets off to family members even though he owes money ?

Do you not think that decent people honour their debts ?

K-9 · 12-01-2012 02:30AM

gigino wrote: »

He trusted that Anglo Irish bank was being regulated. Thats what the regulator and Central bank was supposed to be doing. He bought shares in Anglo Irish thinking it was a sound bank. He did not realise how crooked all the boyos in the fancy suits - but wearing the green jersey as Seanie Fitzpatrick would say - were.

He started off his business life driving one truck for himself. His "greed" grew the business and created thousands of jobs. It was Seanie Fitz greed in befriending him to Anglo Irish bank, and the greed of the government and the regulator in allowing Anglo to behave as it did, which was his downfall. Doing business in this poorly regulatred jurisdiction / banana republic was his downfall. None of his investments in the UK, the jurisdiction from where he's from , backfired because the authorities and institutions there are relatively straight.

The culture here - as shown by Haughey and Ahern etc - is cute hoorism.
Its caught up with us. We are not fit to govern ourselves.

You seem a big fan of regulation. Quinn Life would never have been such a big player with proper regulation of the insurance sector.

So yeah, Anglo would never have happened, Quinn wouldn't have got near his position of influence or wealth either.

Pointless conversation with Gigino. He'd say the regulator was wrong to regulate Quinn Life, evil Public Sector and all that.

Wudyaquit · 12-01-2012 02:47AM

K-9 wrote: »

You seem a big fan of regulation. Quinn Life would never have been such a big player with proper regulation of the insurance sector.

So yeah, Anglo would never have happened, Quinn wouldn't have got near his position of influence or wealth either.

Pointless conversation with Gigino. He'd say the regulator was wrong to regulate Quinn Life, evil Public Sector and all that.

Quinn Life was never a big player by any stretch of the imagination.
If you mean Quinn Insurance, even if it hadn't been as successful with additional regulation, Sean Quinn would still be a billionaire had the Anglo deals not happened.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

All irrelevant waffle.

What is your opinion of his CURRENT actions, hiving assets off to family members even though he owes money ?

Do you not think that decent people honour their debts ?

How irrelevant? His current actions are entirely understandable.
I'm sure that if you were being kicked out of your house partly because you hadn't been given the full facts of the mortgage when you bought it, you'd be turning out your pockets to make sure the bailiffs got everything.

It's all very admirable that you'd move out and make yourself homeless, but he's a fighter and I've a lot more respect for someone that'll dig in and fight than any "decent people" who'll spout moral indignation while bending over and taking it.

Liam Byrne · 12-01-2012 03:03AM

Wudyaquit wrote: »

K-9 wrote: »

You seem a big fan of regulation. Quinn Life would never have been such a big player with proper regulation of the insurance sector.

So yeah, Anglo would never have happened, Quinn wouldn't have got near his position of influence or wealth either.

Pointless conversation with Gigino. He'd say the regulator was wrong to regulate Quinn Life, evil Public Sector and all that.

Quinn Life was never a big player by any stretch of the imagination.
If you mean Quinn Insurance, even if it hadn't been as successful with additional regulation, Sean Quinn would still be a billionaire had the Anglo deals not happened.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

All irrelevant waffle.

What is your opinion of his CURRENT actions, hiving assets off to family members even though he owes money ?

Do you not think that decent people honour their debts ?

How irrelevant? His current actions are entirely understandable.
I'm sure that if you were being kicked out of your house partly because you hadn't been given the full facts of the mortgage when you bought it, you'd be turning out your pockets to make sure the bailiffs got everything.

It's all very admirable that you'd move out and make yourself homeless, but he's a fighter and I've a lot more respect for someone that'll dig in and fight than any "decent people" who'll spout moral indignation while bending over and taking it.

All hypothetical because it'd never happen - I'm (a) not a greedy fvck (b) not a thick fvck who chases rainbows and "too good to be true" stuff (be that Anglo or the ever-increasing house prices fable that Ahern waffled about and (c) we're not talking about "giving up" anything or "making him homeless"......just about making a decent effort to pay what he owes and - at the very least - not trying to wrangle out of it like a cornered low-life weasel.

€2,000 a month is enough money to pay a mortgage and bills, so there's nobody suggesting that he be made homeless - just pay his fvcking bills and not expect us to pay them.

Of course, if your claim re being made homeless were true, your respect completely overlooks the absolute irresponsibility to gamble a family home on ANYTHING; strange that.

Wudyaquit · 12-01-2012 03:41AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

All hypothetical because it'd never happen - I'm (a) not a greedy fvck (b) not a thick fvck who chases rainbows and "too good to be true" stuff (be that Anglo or the ever-increasing house prices fable that Ahern waffled about and (c) we're not talking about "giving up" anything or "making him homeless"......just about making a decent effort to pay what he owes and - at the very least - not trying to wrangle out of it like a cornered low-life weasel.

So, hypothetical or not, are you saying you'd move out and hand over any money you'd stashed or would you keep it if you'd been misinformed?
You're not talking about SQ giving up anything? Conversation closed then, eh

Liam Byrne wrote: »

€2,000 a month is enough money to pay a mortgage and bills, so there's nobody suggesting that he be made homeless - just pay his fvcking bills and not expect us to pay them.

Of course, if your claim re being made homeless were true, your respect completely overlooks the absolute irresponsibility to gamble a family home on ANYTHING; strange that.

Fair play to you that you didn’t get burned in the celtic tiger and you can tut from your ivory tower, but every single person in negative equity without guaranteed income effectively gambled the family home.
And I have more respect for any of them, irresponsible or not, than anyone smugly making moralistic judgements on those that did.

Liam Byrne · 12-01-2012 03:56AM

You're not talking about SQ giving up anything? Conversation closed then, eh

There's a difference between "giving back" and "giving up". We're certainly not talking about him being made homeless, as there are nice apartments in the midlands available for €48,000

Then again, since he chose to PERSONALLY GUARANTEE the loans, we'd be entitled to take everything......but I'm not THAT cruel - if he pays back the 2,800,000,000 that he's trying to con us out of, as well as the 3,000,000 that his wife owes, I reckon we'd give him the 48,000 - if only to scuttle the fanboy objections.

Re the negative equity - that's yet another red herring, because - again - there's a difference between getting an initial loan for a HOME and gambling on it by remortgaging it.

Those are choices, and if you choose irresponsibly then that's your tough.

Wudyaquit · 12-01-2012 04:29AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There's a difference between "giving back" and "giving up". We're certainly not talking about him being made homeless, as there are nice apartments in the midlands available for €48,000

Then again, since he chose to PERSONALLY GUARANTEE the loans, we'd be entitled to take everything......but I'm not THAT cruel - if he pays back the 2,800,000,000 that he's trying to con us out of, as well as the 3,000,000 that his wife owes, I reckon we'd give him the 48,000 - if only to scuttle the fanboy objections.

This is fantasy. Anglo / IBRC have made it abundantly clear they want to ruin him. No house. No car. No 48,000. No hope of getting back to a position to earn in the next 12 years.
They removed any possiblity of him paying back when they moved in last year. That being the case, I'll put the hypothetical situation to you a third time - would you lie down and hand everything over or would you fight and try to hold onto something?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Re the negative equity - that's yet another red herring, because - again - there's a difference between getting an initial loan for a HOME and gambling on it by remortgaging it.

Those are choices, and if you choose irresponsibly then that's your tough.

A huge amount of people who bought houses did so to "get on the property ladder". It wasn't to make a home - it was as a stepping stone to their ultimate home. As such it was an investment decision and a gamble in exactly the same way. And again, even though I'll end up paying for it in the end, I'll have more respect for the ones that try and circumvent the banks taking everything off them than I will for the ones who lie down.

Liam Byrne · 12-01-2012 05:00AM

Wudyaquit wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There's a difference between "giving back" and "giving up". We're certainly not talking about him being made homeless, as there are nice apartments in the midlands available for €48,000

Then again, since he chose to PERSONALLY GUARANTEE the loans, we'd be entitled to take everything......but I'm not THAT cruel - if he pays back the 2,800,000,000 that he's trying to con us out of, as well as the 3,000,000 that his wife owes, I reckon we'd give him the 48,000 - if only to scuttle the fanboy objections.

This is fantasy. Anglo / IBRC have made it abundantly clear they want to ruin him. No house. No car. No 48,000. No hope of getting back to a position to earn in the next 12 years.
They removed any possiblity of him paying back when they moved in last year. That being the case, I'll put the hypothetical situation to you a third time - would you lie down and hand everything over or would you fight and try to hold onto something?

I wouldn't lie and pretend that I was bankrupt.

Poor old Seanie, eh ? His wife tries to rob €3 million - for "renovations", not for buying a house - from a bank and you object to us objecting.

When his bills are paid he can keep whatever he has left. The same as the rest of us.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Re the negative equity - that's yet another red herring, because - again - there's a difference between getting an initial loan for a HOME and gambling on it by remortgaging it.

Those are choices, and if you choose irresponsibly then that's your tough.

A huge amount of people who bought houses did so to "get on the property ladder". It wasn't to make a home - it was as a stepping stone to their ultimate home. As such it was an investment decision and a gamble in exactly the same way. And again, even though I'll end up paying for it in the end, I'll have more respect for the ones that try and circumvent the banks taking everything off them than I will for the ones who lie down.

I know that some did this, and I have no respect for them. You are talking to someone who refused to deal with a bank because they used the phrase "property ladder"; in other words they didn't understand that I wanted to buy a home.

But look - we've established that you and I have polar opposite ethics; you support lying and cheating and fraud, and I don't.

If you are happy to pay for Quinn and other liars and fraudsters, might I suggest that you pay my share too, because If I had my way we would both have nothing to pay back.

I doubt you'll agree, though. You've made your stance clear and are happy to condone gambling and corruption while letting the failed gamblers off scot-free. Despite the fact that they clearly chose to sign documents agreeing to be personally liable for the repayments.

So there is little point in discussing it further.

Wudyaquit · 12-01-2012 05:32AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I wouldn't lie and pretend that I was bankrupt.

4th time - WOULD YOU LIE DOWN AND HAND EVERYTHING OVER OR WOULD YOU FIGHT AND TRY TO HOLD ONTO SOMETHING?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Poor old Seanie, eh ? His wife tries to rob €3 million - for "renovations", not for buying a house - from a bank and you object to us objecting.

When his bills are paid he can keep whatever he has left. The same as the rest of us.

You weren't objecting to anything to do with his wife, so lets not change any tunes now. You were complaining about his current actions.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I know that some did this, and I have no respect for them. You are talking to someone who refused to deal with a bank because they used the phrase "property ladder"; in other words they didn't understand that I wanted to buy a home.

But look - we've established that you and I have polar opposite ethics; you support lying and cheating and fraud, and I don't.

If you are happy to pay for Quinn and other liars and fraudsters, might I suggest that you pay my share too, because If I had my way we would both have nothing to pay back.

Where did I say I was happy to pay for Quinn or anyone else? You've decided to put words in my mouth - I said I have more respect for someone who stands up for themself. You have more respect for mice who lie down and take it up the ass. In this respect we certainly are polar opposites

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I doubt you'll agree, though. You've made your stance clear and are happy to condone gambling and corruption while letting the failed gamblers off scot-free. Despite the fact that they clearly chose to sign documents agreeing to be personally liable for the repayments.

So there is little point in discussing it further.

Again, where the hell did I condone letting anyone off scot-free. You can sit on your moral high horse looking down on everyone who made mistakes in the boom, refusing to indicate what you'd do in the same situation, but please, if you don't have an argument, don't resort to making words up and putting them in my mouth.

Liam Byrne · 12-01-2012 05:48AM

Wudyaquit wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I wouldn't lie and pretend that I was bankrupt.

4th time - WOULD YOU LIE DOWN AND HAND EVERYTHING OVER OR WOULD YOU FIGHT AND TRY TO HOLD ONTO SOMETHING?

No need to shout. I have already answered that I wouldn't be in that position.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Poor old Seanie, eh ? His wife tries to rob €3 million - for "renovations", not for buying a house - from a bank and you object to us objecting.

When his bills are paid he can keep whatever he has left. The same as the rest of us.

You weren't objecting to anything to do with his wife, so lets not change any tunes now. You were complaining about his current actions.

He dragged his own family into it by offloading our assets to them. Don't blame me for that. And it does show their despicable mindset.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I know that some did this, and I have no respect for them. You are talking to someone who refused to deal with a bank because they used the phrase "property ladder"; in other words they didn't understand that I wanted to buy a home.

But look - we've established that you and I have polar opposite ethics; you support lying and cheating and fraud, and I don't.

If you are happy to pay for Quinn and other liars and fraudsters, might I suggest that you pay my share too, because If I had my way we would both have nothing to pay back.

Where did I say I was happy to pay for Quinn or anyone else? You've decided to put words in my mouth - I said I have more respect for someone who stands up for themself. You have more respect for mice who lie down and take it up the ass. In this respect we certainly are polar opposites

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I doubt you'll agree, though. You've made your stance clear and are happy to condone gambling and corruption while letting the failed gamblers off scot-free. Despite the fact that they clearly chose to sign documents agreeing to be personally liable for the repayments.

So there is little point in discussing it further.

Again, where the hell did I condone letting anyone off scot-free. You can sit on your moral high horse looking down on everyone who made mistakes in the boom, refusing to indicate what you'd do in the same situation, but please, if you don't have an argument, don't resort to making words up and putting them in my mouth.

Respecting someone who is getting you to pay their bills = condoning their behaviour. What other conclusion do you suggest that it's possible to draw from "respecting" his actions to try to escape paying what he owes?

And I haven't refused to say anything.....I clearly stated that I wouldn't be in that position. But - as I said - I honour my debts and I don't lie......it might take me a while to pay them but I certainly wouldn't try to pretend they weren't mine - that's what honourable people do when they enter into an agreement.

It's gas really - you pretend that you respect people who refuse to "take it up the ass" and yet you simultaneously expect us to do exactly that to pay Quinn's loans.

I'll pay MY loans (aka take that up the ass) because it's what I agreed.

I won't lie down and pay Quinn's loans, like you said you will.

Who is the one agreeing to get ridden the most again ?

AngryPensioner · 12-01-2012 08:05AM

Quinn should have never been allowed file in the North in the first place. Cheeky bastard.

doomed · 12-01-2012 08:19AM

I used to have a lot of respect for Quinn. He created a lot of jobs in a region that is generally ignored. I bought into the small man with humble needs made good image.

I could even respect him for gambling on the stock market and losing, stupid and all as it was - provided he gambles with his own money.

All I see now is another dishonourable whinging fatcat trying to slither out of his responsibilities and expecting every Irish citizen should contribute not just to pay off his debts but to allow him and his family to retain considerable wealth. No respect there.

Padraig Mor · 12-01-2012 09:46AM

One wonders if the Quinn fans here actually believe their own bull? Poor old John Ignatius (sorry, "Sean" - man of the people and all that...) 'taken advantage of' by Anglo. All of course ignoring that he had run his business into the ground completely separately from his Anglo punt.

doomed wrote: »

I could even respect him for gambling on the stock market and losing, stupid and all as it was - provided he gambles with his own money.

Actually, much of the money for his stock market gambling was "borrowed" (apparently illegally) from his insurance companies funds leading, in part, to every insurance policy holder in the country now having to pay an extra "Sean Quinn levy" from their pockets.

Wudyaquit · 12-01-2012 12:30PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No need to shout. I have already answered that I wouldn't be in that position.
And I haven't refused to say anything.....I clearly stated that I wouldn't be in that position. But - as I said - I honour my debts and I don't lie......it might take me a while to pay them but I certainly wouldn't try to pretend they weren't mine - that's what honourable people do when they enter into an agreement.

Unbelievable. 5 times now - saying a hypothetical situation would never arise and that you would pay your debts is not the same as answering the question, as you're well aware. This really is outstanding.
Let me give you 2 options for you to choose from since you're unwilling to answer a straight question.
If you couldn't pay your debts and the bailiffs were throwing you out of your house, after you having been misinformed on signing up to the mortgage, and you had your last 500 euros hidden, would you
(a) hand over the last 500 euros to the bailiffs with a wink so that you had nothing to live on
(b) hold onto it so you had something to live on

You're not going to answer I know, but I just want to point out who the weasel is here, continuously refusing to answer a straight, if hypothetical, question

Liam Byrne wrote: »

He dragged his own family into it by offloading our assets to them. Don't blame me for that. And it does show their despicable mindset.

Respecting someone who is getting you to pay their bills = condoning their behaviour. What other conclusion do you suggest that it's possible to draw from "respecting" his actions to try to escape paying what he owes?

It's gas really - you pretend that you respect people who refuse to "take it up the ass" and yet you simultaneously expect us to do exactly that to pay Quinn's loans.

I'll pay MY loans (aka take that up the ass) because it's what I agreed.

I won't lie down and pay Quinn's loans, like you said you will.

Who is the one agreeing to get ridden the most again ?

I do condone their behaviour in digging in and trying to hold on rather than hand over their last €100, but I've never said anyone should get off scot free. I'm sure your family would be very happy with you on your moral high horse, telling them to get their coats, fair is fair, lets find a nice spot under a bridge and give these nice gentlemen your pocket money on the way out if you have any. Your kids mightn't have anywhere to live but at least they'd be able to say what an honourable chap daddy was. Congratulations.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

One wonders if the Quinn fans here actually believe their own bull? Poor old John Ignatius (sorry, "Sean" - man of the people and all that...) 'taken advantage of' by Anglo. All of course ignoring that he had run his business into the ground completely separately from his Anglo punt.

Have you backup to this? Because frankly it's nonsense - excluding the Anglo loan repayments the group was profit making up until the point the administrators took over.

Nothingbetter2d · 12-01-2012 12:35PM

when do we see sean working in cavan's local Mcdonalds? They could hire him as a trainee Manager lol

Padraig Mor · 12-01-2012 12:42PM

Wudyaquit wrote: »

Have you backup to this? Because frankly it's nonsense - excluding the Anglo loan repayments the group was profit making up until the point the administrators took over.

The group was only making a profit because the insurance companies were under-reserved to a massive degree, i.e. Seanie boy siphoned off the "profits" (including €200 million to his children) that were legally required to be used to pay claims - this is why we are all now paying the Sean Quinn levy on our policies. And it's hardly nonsense given that it's a known fact that the company refused to admit the regulators to their premises when they arrived to check re reserves etc (weren't you criticising the regulators for not doing their job?) and that Quinn was personally fined millions for these antics.....

thebaz · 12-01-2012 12:50PM

Wudyaquit wrote: »

This is fantasy. Anglo / IBRC have made it abundantly clear they want to ruin him. No house. No car. No 48,000.

the thing is Anglo/ IBRC is us - the people of Ireland now own it - the 100's of company's , the deception, and myriad of Eastern European assets is what annoys me - if he just fronted up honestly and said it as it was , I would have much more respect for a man , who always played up the ordinary man done well

gigino · 12-01-2012 12:53PM

AngryPensioner wrote: »

Quinn should have never been allowed file in the North in the first place.

He was born in the North, started his business in the North and had some sizeable businesses in the North.

He should not have invested in the bank in Dublin because that (a) was his downfall (b) he thought it was regulated but it was not. Everyone in Ireland thought the Central bank + Regulator were doing their jobs but they were not. Do not invest in a bank ( or any other business ) in a banana republic again Sean. If you had stayed in the UK jurisdiction you would still be a billionaire. People there are generally straight. Not like Ahern and Fitzpatrick and the rest of the crowd who persuaded you to wear the green shirt and buy the Irish bank.;)

Wudyaquit · 12-01-2012 01:11PM

Padraig Mor wrote: »

The group was only making a profit because the insurance companies were under-reserved to a massive degree, i.e. Seanie boy siphoned off the "profits" (including €200 million to his children) that were legally required to be used to pay claims - this is why we are all now paying the Sean Quinn levy on our policies. And it's hardly nonsense given that it's a known fact that the company refused to admit the regulators to their premises when they arrived to check re reserves etc (weren't you criticising the regulators for not doing their job?) and that Quinn was personally fined millions for these antics.....

Where are you getting this from. The group was profit-making excluding insurance up until the administrators moved in. They posted a profit in 2008 and it was a write down in property values by the administrators in 2009 accounts that caused the first loss. Manufacturing was still profit making.
By no stnadards was the group run into the ground separate to Anglo.

Padraig Mor · 12-01-2012 01:45PM

Wudyaquit wrote: »

Where are you getting this from. The group was profit-making excluding insurance up until the administrators moved in. They posted a profit in 2008 and it was a write down in property values by the administrators in 2009 accounts that caused the first loss. Manufacturing was still profit making.
By no stnadards was the group run into the ground separate to Anglo.

Excluding insurance? That's like me saying I'd be rich if only I didn't have to pay my mortgage! And Quinn himself conflated the insurance division with the rest of the companies by "loaning" money from Quinn Insurance to other companies in the group, to be eventually used to gamble on the stock market (and was fined for this). Also, the loss in 2009 was only partially due to the property write down - the majority of the loss was operating losses, mostly due to the UK division, which had to pump extra money in to meet the legal reserves limit (which it hadn't met until then as Seanie siphoned off the cash).

Wudyaquit · 12-01-2012 02:33PM

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Excluding insurance? That's like me saying I'd be rich if only I didn't have to pay my mortgage! And Quinn himself conflated the insurance division with the rest of the companies by "loaning" money from Quinn Insurance to other companies in the group, to be eventually used to gamble on the stock market (and was fined for this)

The money taken from the reserve pool was used to service the debt - this in no way benefitted the accounts of the other arms.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Also, the loss in 2009 was only partially due to the property write down - the majority of the loss was operating losses, mostly due to the UK division, which had to pump extra money in to meet the legal reserves limit (which it hadn't met until then as Seanie siphoned off the cash).

Errm, I'd said excluding insuranace. Insurance was profit making up until 2009 -the loss was down to a one-off re-reserving of claims and a slew of Prof Ind claims. Even allowing for under-reserving the company has been profit making over the medium and longer term.
Making a loss in a year when almost every insurance company in UK / Ireland also made underwriting losses, does not constitute a business having already been run into the ground. Ridiculous.

AngryBollix · 12-01-2012 02:40PM

Quinn didnt even employ an actuary.

It shouldnt come as any surprise. Most people in he insurance business could see that quinn direct was eventually going to end up the way it did

AngryBollix · 12-01-2012 02:43PM

thebaz wrote: »

the thing is Anglo/ IBRC is us - the people of Ireland now own it - the 100's of company's , the deception, and myriad of Eastern European assets is what annoys me - if he just fronted up honestly and said it as it was , I would have much more respect for a man , who always played up the ordinary man done well

Saying it out straight makes absolutely no difference. I for one fail to see how this changes anything. If he had come out and admited his mistake would it have changed the end result?

Katekat · 12-01-2012 04:36PM

Couple of rules for running insurance company - don't use it like your own personal bank. When the regulators are at the door, please let them in as its rude not to. Do not use the reserve pool to pay debts else where (and else where is other companies under the quinn group umbrella). If you are caught repeatedly under-reserving you shall be hunted down and caught.

Couple of rules for running a normal company - when taking out loans, please read and understand the terms and conditions of the loan contracts. If giving a personal guarantee to take up loans, personal means personal, not tom, dick or seanie guarantee's beside you there. If you can't pay back loans, well you shall be hunted down and caught (you will be lucky to have socks on your feet but forget the shirt on your back).

Transferring assets to family member for either nothing or laptops whilst owning obsene amounts of money to which is now state bank (ie ours) is not only morally wrong but also should be illegal. The fact that Drummies houses have being sold, well, that house in ballyconnell is looking lovely.......:p

Trying to be declared bankrupt in NI to avail of the lesser period of bankrupcy is also morally wrong. Yes he is born in the north and may have started business there, but its obvious that since the mid 1990's that the area of main business has been the republic. I'm not going to even mention the questionable documents of proof of area of interest which were submitted as it only make my blood boil..:mad:

Do not enter any type of agreement unless you know exactly what your agreeing to and this means the bad things that can happen if you end up in mucky creek without a paddle - and if you don't understand but still enter into them, well lay down and take it, and yes that 500 under the mattress is also gone. :cool:

twinytwo · 12-01-2012 05:45PM

gigino wrote: »

He trusted that Anglo Irish bank was being regulated. Thats what the regulator and Central bank was supposed to be doing. He bought shares in Anglo Irish thinking it was a sound bank. He did not realise how crooked all the boyos in the fancy suits - but wearing the green jersey as Seanie Fitzpatrick would say - were.

He started off his business life driving one truck for himself. His "greed" grew the business and created thousands of jobs. It was Seanie Fitz greed in befriending him to Anglo Irish bank, and the greed of the government and the regulator in allowing Anglo to behave as it did, which was his downfall. Doing business in this poorly regulatred jurisdiction / banana republic was his downfall. None of his investments in the UK, the jurisdiction from where he's from , backfired because the authorities and institutions there are relatively straight.

The culture here - as shown by Haughey and Ahern etc - is cute hoorism.
Its caught up with us. We are not fit to govern ourselves.

The problem with Quinn as with many others in this country... when is enough enough??.... no matter how much they make its never enough

twinytwo · 12-01-2012 05:49PM

gigino wrote: »

He was born in the North, started his business in the North and had some sizeable businesses in the North.

He should not have invested in the bank in Dublin because that (a) was his downfall (b) he thought it was regulated but it was not. Everyone in Ireland thought the Central bank + Regulator were doing their jobs but they were not. Do not invest in a bank ( or any other business ) in a banana republic again Sean. If you had stayed in the UK jurisdiction you would still be a billionaire. People there are generally straight. Not like Ahern and Fitzpatrick and the rest of the crowd who persuaded you to wear the green shirt and buy the Irish bank.;)

So???.... for many years he paid his taxes here... and i wonder why. He is lucky he isnt getting locked up.

LOL if you think the UK is any less corrupt than here... you are seriously deluded.

gigino · 12-01-2012 08:43PM

Had the Irish regulator and Irish central bank donr their job in relation to regulating Anglo Irish bank, he would still be a billionaire instead of in financial difficulty. Why were the Irish banks not regulated as well as the UK ones ? It has cost us all dearly.

twinytwo · 12-01-2012 08:54PM

gigino wrote: »

Had the Irish regulator and Irish central bank donr their job in relation to regulating Anglo Irish bank, he would still be a billionaire instead of in financial difficulty. Why were the Irish banks not regulated as well as the UK ones ? It has cost us all dearly.

For the last time, he borrowed huge sums of money to bet against share prices... of a bank of all things... A highly risky pratice and he got burned. Any sane person would never under any circumstances have borrowed the amount of money he did.... at the end of the day no matter how much you try to blame someone else he could have said no but he didnt................This has nothing to do with the regulation of the bank.

gigino · 12-01-2012 09:43PM

twinytwo wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the regulation of the bank.

He invested in the bank but did not realise the corruption and shady dealings involved in the bank. The bank was not worth what the general public was led to believe it was worth. The bank was not run according to normal banking practice worldwide - when that became clear the share price collapsed. Had it been regulated properly the share price would never have got so inflated in the first place + Sean Quinn would never have tried to invest in the bank. Who influenced Sean Quinn over the shares - Sean Fitzpatrick himself, who knew - or should have known, being its boss - the true story at Anglo.

The simple Quarry man from outside the jurisdiction had not a chance with those sharks in suits. Quinn started off with one lorry and himself driving it. Where he came from - that jurisdiction - politiciians and regulators and banks behaved properly.

Sean Quinn - NI Bankruptcy FAIL

Comments