Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 104 of 121 FirstFirst ... 45494100101102103104105106107108114 ... LastLast
Results 1,031 to 1,040 of 1201

Thread: Roll Over Leo bullied into paying back Anglo bondholders

  1. #1031
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    47,391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eventualities View Post
    The one I've been asking you the entire thread and that you've contorted yourself into grotesque shapes to avoid answering directly: why'd ye f**k our generation over instead of letting gamblers pay their own debts?
    For about the twentieth time - what gamblers, and what debts? No gambling debts were taken on by the State. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
    "So how are things at the Campaign for the Freedom of Information, by the way?" "Sorry, I can't talk about that"

  2. #1032
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    4,503
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hiding behind a poster View Post
    For about the twentieth time - what gamblers, and what debts? No gambling debts were taken on by the State. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
    Unsecured bondholders are, in effect, gamblers.
    You know that, so why not just stop being pedantic and cut the sh1te?
    Flushing Out The PS/CS Trolls and long term Doleboys...two sets of leeches on our society.

  3. #1033
    Politics.ie Member Eventualities's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,946
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fr. Ted Crilly View Post
    Unsecured bondholders are, in effect, gamblers.
    You know that, so why not just stop being pedantic and cut the sh1te?
    Because then he'd have no argument? No means of insulting others' intelligence? No way to avoid the question continually like he has?
    Smoke crack, hail Satan, steal videogames, buy music on vinyl

  4. #1034
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    16,235
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fr. Ted Crilly View Post
    Unsecured bondholders are, in effect, gamblers.
    You know that, so why not just stop being pedantic and cut the sh1te?
    Not really.

    The terms of the contract for a given bond reflect the level of risk that bond buyer wishes to take on.

    In the case of the bonds the Irish banks sold in the mid noughties, these were typically very low risk. Most (if not all) of the Irish banks would have had AAA ratings, so the risk would have been very low. The interest rate paid on the bonds would have reflected this here low level of risk.

    Secured bonds reflect an extremely low level of risk - the buyer gets a named asset in return for the bond in the event that the seller cannot redeem the bond for cash in accordance with the contract terms.

    But other bonds have different terms and conditions to match the deal that the buyer and seller wish to do.

    You will recall that Anglo Irish Bank had €1.1 Billion of bonds which had a clause specifying that the bonds would fall due immediately prior to Anglo being put into liquidation. Whenever Anglo was put into liquidation, in order to facilitate the scrapping of the Promissory Notes, these bonds fell due and Anglo made a claim under the Guarantee.


    But that has nowt to do with Evie's claim about "letting gamblers pay their own debts".

    The banks raised money by selling bonds. Then they loaned out that money to customers.

    As the customers paid back the loans, the banks paid down the maturing bonds.

    Whenever the State nationalised the banks it got assets, the customer loans, and liabilities, the requirement to repay the money borrowed from the Institutions in return for the bonds.



    This has nothing to do with the €120 Billion of debt taken on to fund deficits.
    "Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." Mark Twain

    “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” Napoléon Bonaparte

  5. #1035
    Politics.ie Member Eventualities's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,946
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPN View Post
    Not really.

    The terms of the contract for a given bond reflect the level of risk that bond buyer wishes to take on.

    In the case of the bonds the Irish banks sold in the mid noughties, these were typically very low risk. Most (if not all) of the Irish banks would have had AAA ratings, so the risk would have been very low. The interest rate paid on the bonds would have reflected this here low level of risk.

    Secured bonds reflect an extremely low level of risk - the buyer gets a named asset in return for the bond in the event that the seller cannot redeem the bond for cash in accordance with the contract terms.

    But other bonds have different terms and conditions to match the deal that the buyer and seller wish to do.

    You will recall that Anglo Irish Bank had €1.1 Billion of bonds which had a clause specifying that the bonds would fall due immediately prior to Anglo being put into liquidation. Whenever Anglo was put into liquidation, in order to facilitate the scrapping of the Promissory Notes, these bonds fell due and Anglo made a claim under the Guarantee.


    But that has nowt to do with Evie's claim about "letting gamblers pay their own debts".

    The banks raised money by selling bonds. Then they loaned out that money to customers.

    As the customers paid back the loans, the banks paid down the maturing bonds.

    Whenever the State nationalised the banks it got assets, the customer loans, and liabilities, the requirement to repay the money borrowed from the Institutions in return for the bonds.



    This has nothing to do with the €120 Billion of debt taken on to fund deficits.
    Mirko Pedantič over here.

    More endless waffle from a social illiterate
    Smoke crack, hail Satan, steal videogames, buy music on vinyl

  6. #1036
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    4,503
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPN View Post
    Not really.

    The terms of the contract for a given bond reflect the level of risk that bond buyer wishes to take on.

    In the case of the bonds the Irish banks sold in the mid noughties, these were typically very low risk. Most (if not all) of the Irish banks would have had AAA ratings, so the risk would have been very low. The interest rate paid on the bonds would have reflected this here low level of risk.

    Secured bonds reflect an extremely low level of risk - the buyer gets a named asset in return for the bond in the event that the seller cannot redeem the bond for cash in accordance with the contract terms.

    But other bonds have different terms and conditions to match the deal that the buyer and seller wish to do.

    You will recall that Anglo Irish Bank had €1.1 Billion of bonds which had a clause specifying that the bonds would fall due immediately prior to Anglo being put into liquidation. Whenever Anglo was put into liquidation, in order to facilitate the scrapping of the Promissory Notes, these bonds fell due and Anglo made a claim under the Guarantee.


    But that has nowt to do with Evie's claim about "letting gamblers pay their own debts".

    The banks raised money by selling bonds. Then they loaned out that money to customers.

    As the customers paid back the loans, the banks paid down the maturing bonds.

    Whenever the State nationalised the banks it got assets, the customer loans, and liabilities, the requirement to repay the money borrowed from the Institutions in return for the bonds.



    This has nothing to do with the €120 Billion of debt taken on to fund deficits.
    Hmmm.

    Anyway, how do you think Varadkar's political career would have went if he stood up in 2010 and stated boldly that "We will pay ALL bondholders, even the unsecured junior ones, in full and on time. We will pay them back every red cent"??
    Flushing Out The PS/CS Trolls and long term Doleboys...two sets of leeches on our society.

  7. #1037
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    16,235
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fr. Ted Crilly View Post
    Hmmm.

    Anyway, how do you think Varadkar's political career would have went if he stood up in 2010 and stated boldly that "We will pay ALL bondholders, even the unsecured junior ones, in full and on time. We will pay them back every red cent"??
    See that first word.

    "We".

    "We" don't pay bond holders.

    The banks pay/paid bondholders.

    They paid them with a) trading income, b) proceeds of new bond issues, c) proceeds of asset sales, d) money borrowed from the ECB.

    Nothing to do with "We".


    The bonds that "We" are responsible for are the ones sold by the State to fund €120 Billion of overspending.
    "Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." Mark Twain

    “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” Napoléon Bonaparte

  8. #1038
    Politics.ie Member Eventualities's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,946
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPN View Post
    See that first word.

    "We".

    "We" don't pay bond holders.

    The banks pay/paid bondholders.

    They paid them with a) trading income, b) proceeds of new bond issues, c) proceeds of asset sales, d) money borrowed from the ECB.

    Nothing to do with "We".


    The bonds that "We" are responsible for are the ones sold by the State to fund €120 Billion of overspending.
    So why have we been in an ongoing, decade-plus economic depression that would far outlast any knock-on effects of the outcome you describe?
    Smoke crack, hail Satan, steal videogames, buy music on vinyl

  9. #1039
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    3,929
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hiding behind a poster View Post
    Actually the welfare rises were far in excess of the cost of living. But it's interesting that you're saying the Celtic Tiger was a fake (which in it's latter stages it was, though not in the way you're saying), but even after the fake was shown to be fake and the bubble burst, government should have continued to spend money as if the Celtic Tiger was not only real, but also still with us?

    Completely contradicting yourself, again.
    You are wasting your time trying to teach kids about money. When all they do is keep spouting stuff off leaflets left laying around some Students union sweet shop.

  10. #1040
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    4,503
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPN View Post


    The bonds that "We" are responsible for are the ones sold by the State to fund €120 Billion of overspending.
    Ah yea, FFG's magic money tree......
    Flushing Out The PS/CS Trolls and long term Doleboys...two sets of leeches on our society.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •