Lenihan: "What makes me angry is those who have brought us to this place"



ChickenBiryani

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
686
I stop there (from a financial perspective) since not even the most pessimistic of us believes Anglo's assets are worth zero :)

So in a financial insolvency waterfall, I think its safe to say, the deposit holders would have been the last ones to take a hit.

Again, not defending NAMA, I think its a disastrous behemoth designed to create the impression that we are doing something and can somehow make the money come back when it can't. The money is gone, enormous losses will be suffered. All it does is create a short term financing mechanism and through substitution of assets with significant haircut for ecb bonds that get zero haircut, manages to create some regulatory capital out of thin air.

But a Bankers and Developers bailout it is not.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
16,606
Nama is not a bailout of bankers and developers. It is a bailout, in order of priority of

Bondholders
Senior Debtholders
Depositors.
CB - think through the logic.

Banks would have failed without NAMA based on the reckless lending practices they pursued, they have been allowed to survive and the main "leaders" are still drawing fine salaries despite their incompetence - that sounds and feels like a bailout to me.

The developers...they owed €bns to the banks. Now in the real world where banks struggling to collect can sell off loans to more "effective" collectors and they would be pursued across borders and in the courts and would now be penniless. NAMA has stepped in and "bought" the loans, ignired the personal guarantees and has a ten year schedule to softly go where no bank has gone before....if I owed a bank €1bn and they allowed me keep everything I owned and stay working and in fact even discussed providing seed capital for me to kick-start the next phase of my career, along with privately offering me prime properties at knock down prices, I think I'd feel a bit bailed out....wouldn't you?

Finally, depositors (many of whom owned more to the banks than they had deposited) were given time to take their money out of what was in fact a failed bank....see where this is going....yeah, bailout again.
 

mr_anderson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
9,842
But a Bankers and Developers bailout it is not.
Indeed .... its just sheer coincidence that they benefit.
Do you think they may have contributed to a certain political parties coffers in the past ? .... perhaps some 'correlation' may be evident.

Don't get me wrong, I used to be a stockbroker and have full knowledge of the technicals behind the bailout.
But sometimes, in order to see the full picture, you have to look beyond the technicals ;)

Don't forget, if a TD is declared bankrupt, they must vacate their seat.
 

stoichkov

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
2,500
You are deluded !! You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about whatsoever. You have no concept of how the business world works at all - other than that which you have read from the back of cereal boxes and cartoons. Seriously, Ba'athists?? seriously??

You honestly believe that when a development starts the bank just hands over 100M? The final loan cost of the entire development which will take maybe 2 years and they just hand it over up front?

I would tend to agree with ChickenBiryani - some posters would criticise Lenihan if he commented that the sun rose in the morning and set at night.
so he's a good guy and a top-notch minister, is that it?

come off it. this is the joker who, not so long ago, told the nation that the cost of the anglo bailout was going to be €4 billion.

he patently doesn't have a frigging clue what he's doing, and now he wants us to think that none of it really had anything to do with him.

he's as much of a dud as the rest of them.
 

ChickenBiryani

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
686
I'm sorry but all those assertions there don't distract from the financial facts of what would have happened to the various parties had nama/guarantee not taken place and normal insolvency law kicked in.

For starters lets stop with the notion that the banks "would have failed". The banks did fail. Every single bank in this country was technically insolvent. If normal insolvency had happened, we then need to examine who would have lost out in that insolvency. If those people lost less than they would have otherwise as a result of some action, it might then be described as a bailout. But in describing that bailout, if I am to come up with a catchphrase to encapsulate it, the descriptive term used would probably encompass the people who benefitted the most from it.

And those people who would have financially lost out the most (excluding for a second the salaries of a relatively speaking handful of banking execs) are the people I have listed in reverse order above. They would all have had their accounts frozen, and would have been told that they would receive distributions from the collections from the loans over the length of time it would have taken for them to be realized by a liquidator or examiner, one way or another.

Anglo had €40bn in tens of thousands of customer accounts to whom it would be going "um, I'm sorry but you know your retirement money, em you might get some of it back, over the next 10 years or so but we can't say for certain how much that might be".

Thats not to say that the NAMA legal team may be more or less rigourous in its dealings and pursuit of the loans than might otherwise have been the case. What I do know is the courts are clogged with insolvency cases, Banks ARE (contrary to popular opinion) pursueing loads of cases very aggressively, and I expect NAMA will be the same.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
16,606
The banks did fail.

They would all have had their accounts frozen, and would have been told that they would receive distributions from the collections from the loans over the length of time it would have taken for them to be realized by a liquidator or examiner, one way or another.

and I expect NAMA will be the same.
CB - not sure if you're actually agreeing or not now....the banks DID fail, yet they're still in business, no culling of senior management and no real enforcement of salary caps....that's a bailout.


The bank guarantee was enough to make sure 90% of the population didn't loose their shirts in terms of their deposits, so the fact that some people were given ample time to shift money out of their deposit accounts before the could be netted against loans outstanding.

...and I expect it will be a cold day in hell before NAMA, under a FF led government, will lift a finger to pursue its FFriends, which I think will be a bailout.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
Nama is not a bailout of bankers and developers. It is a bailout, in order of priority of

Bondholders
Senior Debtholders
Depositors.
You left out the following...

Elderly people (with monies in Anglo savings products)
Credit unions (who have Anglo as a counterparty)
Unspecified pension funds (who rank as creditors somewhere in the capital structure)

Or, to simplify: elderly people, credit unions, pensioners, fluffy kittens, etc.

And very definitely NOT bankers and developers. No sireee...
 

SideysGhost

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
17,360
Anglo had €40bn in tens of thousands of customer accounts to whom it would be going "um, I'm sorry but you know your retirement money, em you might get some of it back, over the next 10 years or so but we can't say for certain how much that might be".
See this is where you prove beyond doubt that despite your protestations yer just shilling for Lenny.

We all know that Anglo did not have ordinary savings accounts from ordinary punters, that elderly Mrs O'Flynn down the street did not have her retirement nest egg in Anglo, that the vast bulk of these "deposits" were held by a few hundred individuals, and that most of the Anglo deposits were in fact in origin developer loans.

I'll grant you you've been much better at trying to defend Lenny than the muppets that usually try to defend him on here, but at the end of the day - Epic Fail.
 

ChickenBiryani

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
686
What I am saying is the descriptive term which has somehow wound its way into popular consciousness (probably as David begg and Jack O'Connor repeat it ad nauseum at every opportunity) i.e "we bailed out the Bankers and the Developers", is in effect, a bit of a fallacy as they are neglecting the primary receipients of the States largesse, namely, the Bondholders, Senior Debtholders, and Depositors.
 

ChickenBiryani

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
686
See this is where you prove beyond doubt that despite your protestations yer just shilling for Lenny.

We all know that Anglo did not have ordinary savings accounts from ordinary punters, that elderly Mrs O'Flynn down the street did not have her retirement nest egg in Anglo, that the vast bulk of these "deposits" were held by a few hundred individuals, and that most of the Anglo deposits were in fact in origin developer loans.

I'll grant you you've been much better at trying to defend Lenny than the muppets that usually try to defend him on here, but at the end of the day - Epic Fail.
These ad hominem attacks are disgusting to be honest. I've come here, honestly and fairly and in good faith and tried to provide a bit of balance.

I am not a shill for FF or BL.

You guys are the ones who are blatantly ignoring information that doesn't suit your angry agenda.

Let me tell you that Anglo Irish bank had TENS OF THOUSANDS of ordinary depositholders. You are allowing your prejudice and preconceived notions to get in the way of this.

By all means challenge my interpretation of insolvency law or provide me with a breakdown of their balance sheet or whatever. But don't resort to cheap shots, and unwarranted conclusions and then triumphantly declare "epic fail" like some World of Warcraft playing teenager, when you have demonstrated nothign of the sort.
 

FakeViking

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
8,932
CB, you asserted that BL was a junior Minister (before he became MoJ), and had no way of knowing about the decisions made within his Govt, and their possible consequences during that period

The essence of any good Govt is prudence. McCreevy, Ahern and Cowen were anything but prudent, and BL in his tenure has been nothing short of reckless.

Do you now accept that:

a) he was a Super Junior with access to all Cabinet documents and briefings;

b) he was at least expected to participate in Cabinet dicsussion, and shares Collective Responsibility for them;

c) his allegedly brilliant legal mind should have identified the downside of gambling the Irish economy on a property ponzi scheme.


I've got nothing personal against BL, but it really annoys me when I hear his spin about "what makes me angry ..." when he himself cannot take responsibility for his own errors.
 
Last edited:

ChickenBiryani

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
686
CB, you asserted that BL was a junior Minister (before he became MoJ), and had no way of knowing about the decisions made within his Govt, and their possible consequences during that period

The essence of any good Govt is prudence. McCreevy, Ahern and Cowen were anything but prudent, and BL in his tenure has been nothing short of reckless.

Do you now accept that:

a) he was a Super Junior with access to all Cabinet documents and briefings;

b) he was at least expected to participate in Cabinet dicsussion, and shares Collective Responsibility for them;

c) his allegedly brilliant legal mind should have identified the downside of gambling the Irish economy on a property ponzi scheme.


I've got nothing personal against BL, but it really annoys me when I hear his spin about "what makes me angry ..." when he himself cannot take responsibility for his own errors.
Please see my previous post to bleupoppy. If you say (a) is correct then I do not doubt you. What I am not sure about (and I must admit tbh that I don't know enough about the different levels in our system) is how someone in a junior ministry (whatever the level) would be expected to have as much pull in actual cabinet discussions as the fulltime members of the cabinet themselves.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom