Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dennis O’ Brien got an interest rate of 1.25%

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    kidneyfan wrote: »
    Do you accept the accuracy of the Moriarty tribunal findings?

    I didn't realise the remit of the Moriarty Tribunal covered interest rates on loans made by IBRC.


  • Options
    #33
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Graham wrote: »
    I didn't realise the remit of the Moriarty Tribunal covered interest rates on loans made by IBRC.
    ... or Myanmar for that matter.


  • Options
    #34
    kidneyfan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭kidneyfan


    Graham wrote: »
    I didn't realise the remit of the Moriarty Tribunal covered interest rates on loans made by IBRC.
    Do you accept the truth of the Moriarty report?


  • Options
    #35
    kidneyfan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭kidneyfan


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    ... or Myanmar for that matter.

    Past performance and future results.


  • Options
    #36
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    kidneyfan wrote: »
    Past performance and future results.

    Ahhh, you mean previous loans to DOB corporations performed well so new loans were extended on commercial terms that reflected that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Dopey
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭Dopey


    delahuntv wrote: »
    ....I would not expect a gombeen like catherine murphy to understand - is that some loans that D O'B bought such as Topaz, USED to have a rate of 5% based on the risk profile of their previous owners. .

    You make some very good points but you lose the argument and credibility by labeling Catherine Murphy a gombeen. :(


  • Options
    #38
    delahuntv
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭delahuntv


    Dopey wrote: »
    You make some very good points but you lose the argument and credibility by labeling Catherine Murphy a gombeen. :(

    sorry, when it comes to business matters Catherine Murphy has ZERO credibility based on many other comments she has made in her electroal area - i know, I'm a member of chamber of commerce and no-one has ever heard her come out with anything knowedgeable about business. Hence I believe, as many others do, that she is a puppet for some others.

    Even her dail statement to even suggest that a 7.5% interest rate was warranted shows her utter lack of knowledge of interest rates and how interest rates are decided. If she had said 4% or 5% it would possibly be credible, but 7.5% would mean DO'B would warrant one of the highest business loan rates in the country that would normally only ever apply to toally unsecured lending?

    Hence I, and many others see her as a gombeen when she tries to argue business matters and her utterances have confirmed such.


  • Options
    #39
    nice_guy80
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    Dopey wrote: »
    You make some very good points but you lose the argument and credibility by labeling Catherine Murphy a gombeen. :(

    At least she pays her taxes in Ireland


  • Options
    #40
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    kidneyfan wrote: »
    Do you accept the truth of the Moriarty report?
    Apparently you don't accept the truth of it; considering it has nothing to do with the IBRC loans or Myanmar.


  • Options
    #41
    thisismadness
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭thisismadness


    kbannon wrote: »
    1. Who else got this rate for loans?
    2. When you say "we the taxpaying citizens were paying 7.5% interest on loans at the same failing bank", who is "we" as I don't personally know anyone who had a loan from them?
    3. Did the "we" ask for lower rates?
    4. Why did Dinny get a lower rate? There are suggestions of impropriety but no evidence or allegations of any (apart from a few rants on the web)
    5. What does this have to do with people who have distressed mortgages?
    6. You ask if the government could buy the mortgages and then wonder if it would cost the taxpayer anything. Really?

    1. Really stupid question, unless you are going to get a reply from someone in IBRC - no one else in the world can provide an answer.
    2. You don't know anyone who had a loan 'from them'. Firstly IBRC/Anglo/AIB/BOI/PTSB is 'them'. If you don't know anyone who had a loan from 'them' your living on Mars.
    3. No one who had a loan from any of 'them' ever asked for a lower interest rate?? You have lost your marbles if you think that Irish people didn't try and negotiate interest rates??
    4) Suggestions are that Dinny got a lower rate because of his overall wealth - makes sense as he could provide a lot more security because of this.... The loans were given to companies with no personal guarantees so in fact there was probably even less security...
    5) what does IBRC have to do with distressed mortgages, now I am beginning to worry about you?
    6) Vulture funds can buy distressed mortgages and make a huge profit, what can't the government? Yes it will hit cash flow in the short term, but longer term it actually the best solution. If you think the government should make decisions based on the short term reward you should probably be living in Malta.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    thisismadness
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭thisismadness


    ‘I don’t know what the definition of public interest is.” Thus said Alan Dukes, former chairman of Anglo Irish Bank/IBRC on Morning Ireland yesterday. Dukes was appointed as “public interest director” at Anglo in December 2009. Says it all really.


  • Options
    #43
    john.han
    Closed Accounts Posts: 258 ✭✭john.han


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    All the more reason why 1.25% isn't outside the realm of reasonable possibility given his holdings.

    I work in banking and there is one very good reason why a loan at that rate should not be given.... profit, there is absolutely no way a bank (especially anglo/ibrc) could make any money at that rate, it would be better off not having the loan at all.


  • Options
    #44
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    RecordStraight wrote: »
    By way of an example, there's the classic one about how banks got away with their role in the bubble is trotted out daily. There's no understanding that the owners of the banks lost billions that will never be recovered. And that the owners of the banks - for the most part - were insurance companies and pension funds. The same pension funds that will likely be struggling to pay their pensions in coming years.

    When someone says "the banks" they mean the management, not the investors. In fact people were sympathetic to owners who lost their money in shares. Most people know that distinction.


  • Options
    #45
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    When someone says "the banks" they mean the management, not the investors. In fact people were sympathetic to owners who lost their money in shares. Most people know that distinction.

    Most people haven't a clue about that distinction. 'The banks' are lumped in with 'The Insurance Companies', 'The Government', 'The Troika' and 'The Germans'.


  • Options
    #46
    cajonlardo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭cajonlardo


    delahuntv wrote: »
    Hence I, and many others see her as a gombeen when she tries to argue business matters and her utterances have confirmed such.

    I don't think you know what a gombeen is.


  • Options
    #47
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    john.han wrote: »
    I work in banking and there is one very good reason why a loan at that rate should not be given.... profit, there is absolutely no way a bank (especially anglo/ibrc) could make any money at that rate, it would be better off not having the loan at all.

    given the fact that Anglo/IBRC had major liquidity problems it needed all the cash/cash flow it could get.


  • Options
    #48
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    cajonlardo wrote: »
    I don't think you know what a gombeen is.

    Alternative modern parlance for a gombeen man is someone "on the make". It is also used to describe certain Independent politicians who are seen to prioritize their constituents needs, no matter how trivial, over national interests.


  • Options
    #49
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    john.han wrote: »
    I work in banking and there is one very good reason why a loan at that rate should not be given.... profit, there is absolutely no way a bank (especially anglo/ibrc) could make any money at that rate, it would be better off not having the loan at all.
    Agreed in terms of a working bank, but at this stage weren't we really talking about damage limitation for the bank? Theoretically to prevent a larger disaster Anglo/IBRC could have loaned at a break-even rate.


  • Options
    #50
    john.han
    Closed Accounts Posts: 258 ✭✭john.han


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    given the fact that Anglo/IBRC had major liquidity problems it needed all the cash/cash flow it could get.
    Eh? the liquidity thing strengthens my point, they would have been better off calling in the loan rather than extending it, it was loss making


  • Options
    #51
    john.han
    Closed Accounts Posts: 258 ✭✭john.han


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Agreed in terms of a working bank, but at this stage weren't we really talking about damage limitation for the bank? Theoretically to prevent a larger disaster Anglo/IBRC could have loaned at a break-even rate.
    Exactly damage limitation, so why keep a loss making loan, it had other repayments to make and 500m would have been used to repay bonds thus reducing taxpayer exposure


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    Graham wrote: »
    Most people haven't a clue about that distinction. 'The banks' are lumped in with 'The Insurance Companies', 'The Government', 'The Troika' and 'The Germans'.

    No, seriously -- most people know the distinction between grandpa shareholder and the Banks. It's perfectly correct usage in modern capitalism to blame management of a entity for something, while understanding the owners are a diverse group of shareholders.


  • Options
    #53
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Anyone trying to get their head around this one should take a look at this piece by Cliff Taylor today in the Irish Times which sums up what we do know and outlines what we'd need to find out to establish if everything was above board or not.
    Clarity would be needed on a few points here, but the fundamental issues are, first, what rate O’Brien was paying on his overall borrowings with IBRC and how this compared to other borrowers in IBRC. Given the privacy afforded to private banking arrangements we may never know this information.

    The second issue which arises is whether the rates charged by IBRC to all borrowers were lower than market rates in general. This is possible - likely, even given that IBRC’s focus was on getting the initial borrowings back, rather than making an ongoing profit.


  • Options
    #54
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    No, seriously -- most people know the distinction between grandpa shareholder and the Banks. It's perfectly correct usage in modern capitalism to blame management of a entity for something, while understanding the owners are a diverse group of shareholders.

    No, seriously. Have you not seen the pitchfork wielding muppets who really genuinely believe 'the government' should pay or 'the banks' should pay.


  • Options
    #55
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    Graham wrote: »
    No, seriously. Have you not seen the pitchfork wielding muppets who really genuinely believe 'the government' should pay or 'the banks' should pay.

    Im saying the use of the term "The Banks" is ok in these situations. In fact I am not sure what you argument is. the government did pay as it happens, or we did.


  • Options
    #56
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    thisismadness wrote: »
    1. Really stupid question, unless you are going to get a reply from someone in IBRC - no one else in the world can provide an answer.
    I disagree. The former head of IBRC has said that a number of performing customers got low rate loans. Why should the banking details of only one of these be a cause for concern?
    Why aren't the others being named?
    thisismadness wrote: »
    2. You don't know anyone who had a loan 'from them'. Firstly IBRC/Anglo/AIB/BOI/PTSB is 'them'. If you don't know anyone who had a loan from 'them' your living on Mars.
    I was responding to the claim that "we the taxpaying citizens were paying 7.5% interest on loans at the same failing bank" - I believe this to be a fair response to it.
    thisismadness wrote: »
    3. No one who had a loan from any of 'them' ever asked for a lower interest rate?? You have lost your marbles if you think that Irish people didn't try and negotiate interest rates??
    Were they performing loans or did they overborrow and are now struggling to repay said loans?
    thisismadness wrote: »
    4) Suggestions are that Dinny got a lower rate because of his overall wealth - makes sense as he could provide a lot more security because of this.... The loans were given to companies with no personal guarantees so in fact there was probably even less security...

    Are we discussing suggestions or facts?
    I'd rather discuss the facts if you don't mind.
    So, yes DOB got a low rate loan from IBRC due to his business interests apparently (based on Mike Ainsley's comment that all performing customers were treated the same and got loans that reflected the risk.
    What is the problem with this?
    Both the NTMA and Irish financial institutions borrow from the markets at rates that reflect the risk. For some time Ireland was a high risk. Now we are a good risk. Do you still think we should pay the same interest rates now as when we were a poor credit rating?
    thisismadness wrote: »
    5) what does IBRC have to do with distressed mortgages, now I am beginning to worry about you?

    Go on, elaborate on the exact relationship (and not just Anglo failed so mortgages became distressed).
    People borrowed to the hilt despite several warnings. However, all of this has nothing to do with one customer's banking details being leaked by someone within IBRC to the media.
    thisismadness wrote: »
    6) Vulture funds can buy distressed mortgages and make a huge profit, what can't the government? Yes it will hit cash flow in the short term, but longer term it actually the best solution. If you think the government should make decisions based on the short term reward you should probably be living in Malta.

    The government is not there to make profit from distressed mortgages nor do I believe that it is a prudent way for the state to spend the limited money it collects.
    As for it being the best solution, can you please provide a reliable source for this?


  • Options
    #57
    RecordStraight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭RecordStraight


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    No, seriously -- most people know the distinction between grandpa shareholder and the Banks. It's perfectly correct usage in modern capitalism to blame management of a entity for something, while understanding the owners are a diverse group of shareholders.
    Eugene, most people complaining loudly clearly don't have a scooby. Spend 10 minutes on any Facebook protest group and try to tell us that again with a straight face.


  • Options
    #58
    kidneyfan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭kidneyfan


    kbannon wrote: »
    Are we discussing suggestions or facts?
    I'd rather discuss the facts if you don't mind.
    So, yes DOB got a low rate loan from IBRC due to his business interests apparently (based on Mike Ainsley's comment that all performing customers were treated the same and got loans that reflected the risk.
    What is the problem with this?
    Aynsley's comments are assertions not facts. Based on the documents released by the Department of Finance Aynsley's assertions should be taken with a spoonful of salt.
    We simply don't know the facts.


  • Options
    #59
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    kidneyfan wrote: »
    Aynsley's comments are assertions not facts. Based on the documents released by the Department of Finance Aynsley's assertions should be taken with a spoonful of salt.
    We simply don't know the facts.
    Fair enough buy I'll take Ainsley's assertions over the suggestions from some poster who joined boards today!


  • Options
    #60
    delahuntv
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭delahuntv


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    Anyone trying to get their head around this one should take a look at this piece by Cliff Taylor today in the Irish Times which sums up what we do know and outlines what we'd need to find out to establish if everything was above board or not.

    You would have to make comparison with someone who has equal quality of security of borrowings.

    Unfortunately from 2007 to today, there are very few individuals that can match DO'B's quality of security (est net wealth $6.7bn.) The only comparison that could be made in Ireland would be with Martin Naughton (est wealth $2.2bn or Dermot Desmond $2bn) and even then his security would still be substantially better.

    On a world scale he's about number 200 in richest on the planet.

    So for Catherine Murphy to suggest that the 200th richest man on earth with a personal net wealth of $6.7 BILLION should pay a 7.5% interest rate on a large loan is just laughable. And tells you plenty of her pettiness and incorrectness in order to grab headlines.


    Is there anyone here that thinks Catherine Murphy's dictat that O'Brien should have been paying 7.5% interest rate is believeable?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    kidneyfan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭kidneyfan


    kbannon wrote: »
    Fair enough buy I'll take Ainsley's assertions over the suggestions from some poster who joined boards today!
    Fair enough. But certainly based on the documents released by the department of Finance he isn't credible.


Advertisement