So we dont have to pay back German Bondholders

paddy147 · 26-08-2012 02:02PM

Oh sweet lord jesus....does anyone watch and listen these days???

Look and Listen carefully to what Mr McCarthy says and states and then listen to what Mr Rabbit then says and admits to aswell.

Its not rocket science.

Cheerful Spring · 26-08-2012 03:15PM

The end game the solution is we'll have to join a federal Europe or leave the Euro. But that solution of course means bankers will have more power over peoples daily lives. Is this intentional of course it is folks! The bond market is a rigged game too when you have populations of countries and their elected politicians willing to pay back their losses with interest. Is there any wonder pressure is therefore applied to seek bailouts?

Good loser · 26-08-2012 07:27PM

paddy147 wrote: »

Oh sweet lord jesus....does anyone watch and listen these days???

Look and Listen carefully to what Mr McCarthy says and states and then listen to what Mr Rabbit then says and admits to aswell.

Its not rocket science.

You don't seem to be aware, paddy, that there is only a two month window, after an ECB action, in which to bring a court case against them?

You have now been so informed. In these circumstances what do you suggest?

Also with respect to my earlier post who should give us the €20 bn 'back'?

Geuze · 26-08-2012 08:02PM

The ownership of the senior bank bonds is not made public.

The owners are likely to be managed funds, pension funds, etc., from all over Europe.

later12 · 26-08-2012 08:14PM

Good loser wrote: »

You don't seem to be aware, paddy, that there is only a two month window, after an ECB action, in which to bring a court case against them?

I presume you're referring here to article 265 of the TFEU?

In which case, it's not quite clear that the ECB has yet been "called to act", since we do not know the contents of the letter. Until the contents of the letter to the Irish administration is revealed, how on Earth can the ECB be called to act

What McCarthy is after is a judicial review so as that the contents of the letter might be at least discovered.

Sponge Bob · 26-08-2012 10:46PM

We paid most of the German Bondholders by January 2011. The case is about getting this money BACK...if the case is taken that is.

Good loser · 26-08-2012 11:36PM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

We paid most of the German Bondholders by January 2011. The case is about getting this money BACK...if the case is taken that is.

But the suggested case is against the ECB i. e. they are to be the defendents.

Good loser · 26-08-2012 11:41PM

later12 wrote: »

I presume you're referring here to article 265 of the TFEU?

In which case, it's not quite clear that the ECB has yet been "called to act", since we do not know the contents of the letter. Until the contents of the letter to the Irish administration is revealed, how on Earth can the ECB be called to act

What McCarthy is after is a judicial review so as that the contents of the letter might be at least discovered.

But the parties to any action would be aware of the contents. Unless they knew the contents, and acted on them, there would be no case against the ECB.

27-08-2012 09:10AM

Geuze wrote: »

The ownership of the senior bank bonds is not made public. The owners are likely to be managed funds, pension funds, etc., from all over Europe.

The list of names of the senior bondholders in Anglo was leaked from a confidential report a couple of years back. It's available online fairly easily with a bit of googling. It's unverified/unverifiable of course, due to it's very nature, but if it's to be believed then you're right on the money. It's made up of of all the usual suspects, the major players in vulture capitalism in London, Europe, and New York for the most part. I won't mention any specifics for fear of Libel issues, board infractions, etc, but if you think of any major worldwide name in the field of making the rich richer and the poor poorer over the last 30 years, they are likely to be on there....

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The big, bad Germany stuff is also getting really old.

It may be getting old, but it's nonetheless still 100% relevant. Germany are a very powerful player in EU policy making and they have vested interests in all of this which are diametrically opposed to our own. They have shown many times over the last few years that they are not afraid to hamper the interests of minor countries like Ireland to protect their own position.

paddy147 wrote: »

I wonder will Kenny and Noonan now finally stand up to the ECB and Germany,or will they still suck up to them both.

I hope so, and i think now is the time to strike while the iron is hot. So far, successive Irish administrations have done nothing but buddy up to the IMF/ECB and particularly the EU leaders and play the good boy in the class in the hope that we'll be given a gold star. Realistically all that's of concern to them right now is the troublesome row of bullies down the back and the kid over in the corner who's threatening to set fire to the curtains if he doesn't get some attention. We are a minor problem which is slowly sorting itself out. We will get nothing but more delaying tactics with our current approach, which is why i think it's refreshing to see Noonan and co starting to look like they are beginning to move the pieces into place for some concerted action against Europe instead of being prepared to accept further worthless assurances while implementing increasingly savage budgets year-on-year.

I read Noonan's comments in the press over the weekend regarding the possible release of a 2010 threatening letter from Jean Claude Trichet in relation to forcing the Late minister Lenihan's hand on the Irish bailout. It was a refreshing change of strategy from a finance minister who i would have more respect for than i do for his party and their position so far on all of this. This matter on the Vincent Browne show would appear to signal a co-ordinated approach from FG/Labour in preparation for a more pressing demand on partial debt forgiveness from the EU.

Maybe they have finally seen that by threatening to start a little fire of our own we'll get some attention in what has become a culture of fire fighting in Europe.

antoobrien · 27-08-2012 11:04AM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

We paid most of the German Bondholders by January 2011. The case is about getting this money BACK...if the case is taken that is.

Lets try to stop this fallacy one and for all. We were not paying back German (or French) bondholders. The Euro area bonds were a small percentage of the overall bonds held. While the overall levels have dropped they have not gone down nearly as much as the RoW bonds. The Euro area bonds held by Irish banks have dropped by €8bn since 2007. The RoW bonds have dropped by €61bn.

Here's a summary of the information in the above link wrt bonds held by the banks with Irish operations between 2007 & 2011 (amounts in €bn at Eoy):

Year | Irish |Euro Area | RoW
2007 | 29 | 15 | 77
2008 | 27 | 16 | 57
2009 | 39 | 12 | 47
2010 | 33 | 10 | 21
2011 | 30 | 8 | 14
'12 H1 | 25 | 7 |8

The corresponding information for the covered institutions (i.e. Irish banks)
Year | Irish |Euro Area | RoW
2007 | 28 | 13 | 75
2008 | 26 | 14 | 54
2009 | 38 | 11 | 46
2010 | 33 | 10 | 20
2011 | 29 | 8 | 13
'12 H1| 25 | 7 | 8

To be very clear about this, there have been about €6bn in bonds paid to Euro area institutions since 2008 from the Irish banks, so we are NOT propping up German or French institutions.

later12 · 27-08-2012 11:07AM

Good loser wrote: »

But the parties to any action would be aware of the contents. Unless they knew the contents, and acted on them, there would be no case against the ECB.

But just to clarify, are you talking about Article 265 of the TFEU?

To clarify, McCarthy is suggesting bringing a case against the ECB under article 340 of the TFEU, in conjunction with the ECB's own statutes; which by my reading of it doesn't suffer the same temporal restrictions mentioned in Article 265.

Moreover, it wouldn't necessarily be the state taking a case against the ECB, but perhaps an affected institution. Therefore, even if there were some sort of time limit, because of the fact that the contents of the letter are yet to be discovered, it seems unlikely that any time limit would apply, as yet.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 27-08-2012 02:24PM

antoobrien wrote: »

To be very clear about this, there have been about €6bn in bonds paid to Euro area institutions since 2008 from the Irish banks, so we are NOT propping up German or French institutions.

Oh don't worry, the 'Burners' don't care about French banks any more, now that Sarkozy is out and Hollande is in...

poeticseraphim · 27-08-2012 03:03PM

You do realize that many Bondholders are Irish and if you burn some bondholders you must burn all.

Some are British..our economy is very much linked to the British economy and we would go into deeper recession with them.

Some are American...if you think you can take on the Americans your crazy.

Some are Spanish and German....and if they go down so do we.

We are currently negotiating a deal to write it off with the IMF.

I don't hold with either camp either that we screw the Germans or let them run the place NEITHER is the answer.

Eu regulatory legislation hampered audits and allowed for banks to misprepresent their finances . But Irish company law could have been enforced had the regulator been competent and honest.

It is not the Germans fault...they are not blameless...

We could burn the bondholders...but the markets would destroy us for it lending for us would go higher than it is for Spain.

THE GOVT IS DOING THE RIGHT THING

We are actually doing the best out of the PIIGS..

PADDY if you took a look at our economy and how the markets have responded to us and at indications of a deal i think you would admit they got it right.

antoobrien · 27-08-2012 03:06PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Oh don't worry, the 'Burners' don't care about French banks any more, now that Sarkozy is out and Hollande is in...

True, but those figures give a good idea of why the various parties were so against the idea of bondholders getting burned. In the US alone in September 2008 Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, Merril Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG and Washington Mutual all collapsed.

liammur · 27-08-2012 03:59PM

Noonan willing to reveal the letter. FF trying to cash in. How desperate a party they still are.

FINANCE Minister Michael Noonan says he is willing to overrule civil servants in his department and release a letter from the ECB which forced Ireland into a bailout.

Mr Noonan was speaking in Limerick this morning, and said it “would be appropriate” for him to publish the letter, despite his department previously refusing to release it under Freedom of Information legislation.

The November 2010 letter from then ECB president Jean Claude Trichet to former finance minister Brian Lenihan is said to have threatened the withdrawal of emergency liquidity assistance (ELA) to Ireland if the then government refused to accept the bailout, that included a ban on burning bondholders.

"Usually, communications of an international nature are not subject to freedom of information, so, the freedom of information unit in the Department of Finance decided not to release it publicly,” Mr Noonan said.

“And their equivalents in Frankfurt in the European Central Bank took a similar view.

"But, my view on it is that, it would be appropriate for me to overrule the independence of those that decide on freedom of information."

Fianna Fail’s Michael McGrath has called for the letter to be released, but Mr Noonan said his party had their own opportunity to do it while in power.

Mr Noonan said the letter will be given to whatever banking inquiry is set up, and it will then be up to the inquiry to publish it.

later12 · 27-08-2012 04:30PM

liammur wrote: »

Noonan willing to reveal the letter. FF trying to cash in. How desperate a party they still are.

I am quite genuinely amazed at the ongoing desire to use any item in the news as a Fianna Fail bashing exercise.

Seriously, people have just gotten what they wanted, and your first utterance is about Fianna Fail. Whilst I am not going to stand up and come to Fianna Fail's defense over much of their handling of the economic & banking crisis, surely there are more interesting or relevant points to derive from this story than an exercise in FF bashing.

I find it genuinely disturbing that the thrust of so much of our economic discourse is focused on a party which, to any neutral observer, should be a total irrelevance.

If anti FF tit-for-tat is going to characterize public discourse on accounting for and evaluating the policies of the crisis, I'm afraid we're not likely to ever learn anything.

liammur · 27-08-2012 04:36PM

later12 wrote: »

I am quite genuinely amazed at the ongoing desire to use any item in the news as a Fianna Fail bashing exercise.

Seriously, people have just gotten what they wanted, and your first utterance is about Fianna Fail. Whilst I am not going to stand up and come to Fianna Fail's defense over much of their handling of the economic & banking crisis, surely there are more interesting or relevant points to derive from this story than an exercise in FF bashing.

I find it genuinely disturbing that the thrust of so much of our economic discourse is focused on a party which, to any neutral observer, should be a total irrelevance.

If anti FF tit-for-tat is going to characterize public discourse on accounting for and evaluating the policies of the crisis, I'm afraid we're not likely to ever learn anything.

Out comes FF spokesperson calling for the letter to be released. Well, as Noonan said, if he was that concerned, why the hell didn't they release it themselves when they were in power? That's the type of politics everyone should be concerned about.

later12 · 27-08-2012 04:38PM

liammur wrote: »

Out comes FF spokesperson calling for the letter to be released. Well, as Noonan said, if he was that concerned, why the hell didn't they release it themselves when they were in power? That's the type of politics everyone should be concerned about.

Is that really the big news story today? Really?

Lets see the contents of the letter & then see whether it vindicates or explains the behaviour of the then Minister for Finance. Either way, we really need to move on from making every single economic story an anti FF tirade, don't you agree?

liammur · 27-08-2012 04:46PM

later12 wrote: »

Is that really the big news story today? Really?

Lets see the contents of the letter & then see whether it vindicates or explains the behaviour of the then Minister for Finance. Either way, we really need to move on from making every single economic story an anti FF tirade, don't you agree?

I completely disagree.
It's far bigger than you think. There's a breach of trust here if the government releases that letter. FF know that. I know that. My dog knows that. So here we have them trying to taunt the government into making a potentially massive mistake. That's not the type of opposition party I want. For once, they should think of putting the country first.

Sponge Bob · 27-08-2012 04:50PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Lets try to stop this fallacy one and for all. We were not paying back German (or French) bondholders.

Let me rephrase, the title implies we have big payments to make, I wished to point out that most payments HAD been made by January 2011....I take your point as to who was paid.

For Forks Sake · 27-08-2012 04:57PM

liammur wrote: »

Fianna Fail’s Michael McGrath has called for the letter to be released, but Mr Noonan said his party had their own opportunity to do it while in power.

If Mr McGrath wants to know the contents of the letter, why not turn to his right and ask deputy Martin who was a cabinet minister at the time. This is quite frankly pathetic revisionism by FF.

later12 · 27-08-2012 05:03PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Lets try to stop this fallacy one and for all. We were not paying back German (or French) bondholders. The Euro area bonds were a small percentage of the overall bonds held. While the overall levels have dropped they have not gone down nearly as much as the RoW bonds. The Euro area bonds held by Irish banks have dropped by €8bn since 2007. The RoW bonds have dropped by €61bn.

Here's a summary of the information in the above link wrt bonds held by the banks with Irish operations between 2007 & 2011 (amounts in €bn at Eoy):

Year | Irish |Euro Area | RoW
2007 | 29 | 15 | 77
2008 | 27 | 16 | 57
2009 | 39 | 12 | 47
2010 | 33 | 10 | 21
2011 | 30 | 8 | 14
'12 H1 | 25 | 7 |8

The corresponding information for the covered institutions (i.e. Irish banks)
Year | Irish |Euro Area | RoW
2007 | 28 | 13 | 75
2008 | 26 | 14 | 54
2009 | 38 | 11 | 46
2010 | 33 | 10 | 20
2011 | 29 | 8 | 13
'12 H1| 25 | 7 | 8

To be very clear about this, there have been about €6bn in bonds paid to Euro area institutions since 2008 from the Irish banks, so we are NOT propping up German or French institutions.

I must have missed this earlier.

As acceptable as it is to say that there is no evidence of any consequential holdings of French and German funds in the Irish domestic covered institutions, it is quite a valid argument that due to the nature of the IFSC & the amount of treasury operations there, it is possible that very much non-irish ownership (or beneficial ownership) appears as Irish ownership on paper. Indeed, that's part of the raison d'etre of the IFSC.

This is not evidence of French and German banking interests, but it is something bear in mind when employing a crude implement like the CBI's aggregate balance sheet for the covered institutions.

Sponge Bob · 27-08-2012 05:09PM

later12 wrote: »

As acceptable as it is to say that there is no evidence of any consequential holdings of French and German funds in the Irish domestic covered institutions, it is quite a valid argument that due to the nature of the IFSC & the amount of treasury operations there, it is possible that very much non-irish ownership (or beneficial ownership) appears as Irish ownership on paper. Indeed, that's part of the raison d'etre of the IFSC.

Also true. these 'bondholders' may have been Irish Domiciled entities controlled by German Banks.

However the bondholders HAVE been paid back, and were largely in 2009 and 2010.

We must differentiate between 2008 era threats from the ECB...ie save Europes Banks...and the 2010 era threat that Ireland had to seek a bailout to prevent contagion on sovereign bond markets. Two separate issues.

Threats in 2008 would have arisen AFTER 2 matters came to light.

1. The state of 'our banks'
2. The antics of German companies in the IFSC ( a la Unicredit ( Italian) in the news today) . Have we forgotten Depfa, West LB,and Sachsen LB...all German and indeed Cologne re/Gen Re ( US/German) as well as others.

The amount of turd polishing going on in Dublin in 2007 and 2008 was unreal.

Godge · 27-08-2012 05:18PM

paddy147 wrote: »

Oh sweet lord jesus....does anyone watch and listen these days???

Look and Listen carefully to what Mr McCarthy says and states and then listen to what Mr Rabbit then says and admits to aswell.

Its not rocket science.

Thanks, if it is not rocket science and as you seem to have a clear understanding of the issue, for those of us unable to view the VB show on our computer, maybe you would summarise the legal basis in a couple of paragraphs with references and links to EU and Irish legislation and relevant case history.

From my limited understanding of the issue, based on what I have read (unfortunately have not been able to see that unbiased factually-based VB show, but ah well), it would seem that the argument being made is that in late 2010 we were forced into the bailout by a threatening letter sent from the ECB which was acting outside its powers.

It would seem to me that it would not be possible to prove that this was the single most important reason for the bailout (i.e. our gross overspending had nothing to do with it). However, if it was possible to prove it and if it was also to be proven that the ECB had technically gone beyond its mandate, this could have very serious implications for Ireland.

In saying it could have very serious implications for us, I am not thinking about the €6 bn or so (which seems to be the maximum figure being thrown about here which is about three or four months of our deficit) that we might get back. No, I am thinking back further to the time of the Two Brians (think Three Stooges with less brainpower) when we guaranteed the banks in September 2008. Arguably this was done outside the powers of the state and was done without consideration of the effect on other member states. Therefore, it is arguable that the Germans, the French, even the Greeks could sue little old Ireland for the cost of the actions of the two Brians and the consequential knock-on effects on the rest of the European economy.

Remember, if you open a can of worms, you may the one who ends up as worm-feed.

later12 · 27-08-2012 05:40PM

Godge wrote: »

In saying it could have very serious implications for us, I am not thinking about the €6 bn or so (which seems to be the maximum figure being thrown about here which is about three or four months of our deficit) that we might get back. No, I am thinking back further to the time of the Two Brians (think Three Stooges with less brainpower) when we guaranteed the banks in September 2008. Arguably this was done outside the powers of the state and was done without consideration of the effect on other member states. Therefore, it is arguable that the Germans, the French, even the Greeks could sue little old Ireland for the cost of the actions of the two Brians and the consequential knock-on effects on the rest of the European economy.

Remember, if you open a can of worms, you may the one who ends up as worm-feed.

What a bizarre reply.

There is nothing in European law or the Treaties which procluded MSs from saving their banking systems. Can you elaborate on that scope for litigation with reference to European legislation and/or the Treaties?

The basis for the case suggested by Mccarthy under article 340 & the ECB statutes has already been mentioned.

Godge · 27-08-2012 05:44PM

later12 wrote: »

What a bizarre reply.

There is nothing in European law or the Treaties which procluded MSs from saving their banking systems. Can you elaborate on that scope for litigation with reference to European legislation and/or the Treaties?

The basis for the case suggested by Mccarthy under article 340 & the ECB statutes has already been mentioned.

I accept that my reply is bizarre but when responding to a bizarre OP what better way?

P.S. There are articles in the Treaty about Member States acting in concert etc and not disrupting etc. Can't be bothered reading through it again but the point is if one person is going to construct a bizarre legal case based on a bizarre interpretation of an obscure provision of the Treaty, aren't we all entitled to do so.

later12 · 27-08-2012 05:49PM

Godge wrote: »

I accept that my reply is bizarre but when responding to a bizarre OP what better way?

P.S. There are articles in the Treaty about Member States acting in concert etc and not disrupting etc. Can't be bothered reading through it again but the point is if one person is going to construct a bizarre legal case based on a bizarre interpretation of an obscure provision of the Treaty, aren't we all entitled to do so.

What do you think is bizarre, in a legal sense, about taking a case under article 340 and the ECB statutes as set out by Colm McCarthy if the allegations made by Lenihan & Ahern & Ajay Chopra & even Jorg Asmussen are correct?

I would suggest answering that question is far more effective than initiating a bizzare counter-scenario, which I'm sure we'd still all love to hear elaborated.

ncdadam · 27-08-2012 05:52PM

paddy147 wrote: »

.....anyone want to comment on this and how the ECB have threatened us and forced us to pay billions that we never had to pay...

Colm McCarthy digs up the truth about the ECB,and Pat Rabbit finally admits to a few interesting things too.

Ireland have a case to take against the ECB in the European Courts of Justice to get back the billions of euros we should never have paid in the 1st place.

Makes for very interesting viewing.;)

http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/52207/1/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

PS-I wonder will Kenny and Noonan now finally stand up to the ECB and Germany,or will they still suck up to them both.

If your waiting for Kenny or Noonan to stand up for the ordinary people of Ireland, you'll have a long wait.

liammur · 27-08-2012 06:04PM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Also true. these 'bondholders' may have been Irish Domiciled entities controlled by German Banks.

However the bondholders HAVE been paid back, and were largely in 2009 and 2010.

We must differentiate between 2008 era threats from the ECB...ie save Europes Banks...and the 2010 era threat that Ireland had to seek a bailout to prevent contagion on sovereign bond markets. Two separate issues.

Threats in 2008 would have arisen AFTER 2 matters came to light.

1. The state of 'our banks'
2. The antics of German companies in the IFSC ( a la Unicredit ( Italian) in the news today) . Have we forgotten Depfa, West LB,and Sachsen LB...all German and indeed Cologne re/Gen Re ( US/German) as well as others.

The amount of turd polishing going on in Dublin in 2007 and 2008 was unreal.

That was an Irish bank, which operated in a most reckless manner. Fortunately for the Irish taxpayer, and unfortunately for the German taxpayer, Germans took them over just before the crash and got hit to the tune of over €100bln. The Germans warned us about it & other reckless behaviour in the IFSC, but Micheal Martin told them regulation should be 'light'.

Sponge Bob · 27-08-2012 06:39PM

liammur wrote: »

That was an Irish bank, which operated in a most reckless manner.

Depfa was a german bank that moved HQ to Dublin in 2002 because they could do what they liked. When they collapsed they brought down their THEN parent Hypo leading to the biggest single bailout in Eurozone History ...then or since.

Had Hypo NOT bought Depfa it could have created a bigger mess than all the covered banks together.

So we dont have to pay back German Bondholders

Comments