Roll Over Leo bullied into paying back Anglo bondholders


Eventualities

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
2,196
Pathetic post. Grow up. People have lives to lead, sometimes they post on here, and sometimes they don't.

Idiot.
I read this post and heard the faint rattling of a cup as it was urgently but politely placed onto a saucer. The rustling of a newspaper. Maybe an Irish Independent.
 

Eventualities

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
2,196
You're worse to be taking the bait.

Trolls will be trolling.

All we can do is make sure the facts get aired.

But there comes a time when you just have to stand back and leave them to it.


Evie's little brainfart of an OP has been well discussed at this stage.

Time to move on.
Ah, yeah, the ultimate dodge of the question asked repeatedly of you. A grand display of sealioning, too.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,762
Those responsible - senior bankers/bondholders, property developers, tax-cheating corporations, politicians, etc. did have most if not all of the stated deficit between them. Why wasn't it taken in due course? Who do you think you're fooling with the TINA stuff?
The bankers are responsible to the shareholders (and other investors) who lost everything because of their imprudent lending policies.

The bondholders (Insurance Companies, Pension Funds, Credit Unions, Etc.) bought AAA rated bonds. They did nothing wrong.

Property Developers got caught offside whenever the banks stopped lending. Nobody told them that the banks would not be lending to their customers down the road. There as always an assumption, rightly or wrongly, that there would be customers for their buildings whenever they were built.

Politicians:

- Zoned enough land for retail for a population of 12 million.
- Zoned enough land for housing for a population of 9 million.
- Allowed 300,000 jobs to become dependent on a ponzi scheme
- Allowed one third of tax revenues to become dependent on a ponzi scheme
- Increased recurring spending by 50% whenever the money from the ponzi scheme was washing into Merrion Street.

Tax cheating corporations?

The politicians write the tax laws. The corporations follow those laws.


And you left out the biggest beneficiaries of the ponzi scheme - the Social Partners.

They got the money during the ponzi scheme, and whenever the money from the ponzi scheme ran out, they still got the money courtesy of the mext generation - €120 Billion of deficit spending.





Ah, yeah, the ultimate dodge of the question asked repeatedly of you. A grand display of sealioning, too.
What question remains unanswered?

You are just a spoofer.

Jog on.
 

Eventualities

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
2,196
What question remains unanswered?

You are just a spoofer.

Jog on.
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?
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,762
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?
I have answered directly multiple times.

We didn't.

We/They fcvked over your generation to maintain overspending at world record levels. €120 Billion and counting.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,550

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
24,550

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
47,997
The ones you've been denying up and down in this thread and can't quite make disappear.
I haven't denied any "sweet deals". How can I, since nobody will even tell me what they are?
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
47,997
Those responsible - senior bankers
If you taxed every senior banker in the country 100% of their salary, how much of the €20 billion annual budget deficit would you fix? Notwithstanding the legal costs when they'd take you to court and win, that is.

/bondholders,
I'm not sure you understand what a bondholder is. Do you?

property developers,
And they were. They were pursued for everything they owed.

tax-cheating corporations
How did they cause the crash? Were there none in 2007, but loads decided to cheat in 2008?

politicians, etc.
Fine. Which politicians, and how about the people who voted for them? Aren't they ultimately responsible? So do you find out who they were, and shake them down for €20 billion a year too?

did have most if not all of the stated deficit between them. Why wasn't it taken in due course? Who do you think you're fooling with the TINA stuff?
Errrr, what? You understand that a deficit is the excess of spending over revenue - don't you?
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
47,997
What benefits? The Celtic Tiger was a bubble, not an economic upturn. Rural Ireland was disintegrating even then, your generation just mistook shopping centres for progress. Welfare rises? Maybe, if they were in step with rises in the cost of living to begin with, which, of course, they weren't.
You're a spoofer.
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.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
47,997
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.
 

Fr. Ted Crilly

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2018
Messages
5,154
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?
 

Eventualities

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
2,196
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?
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,762
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.
 

Eventualities

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
2,196
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
 

Fr. Ted Crilly

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2018
Messages
5,154
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"??
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,762
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.
 

Eventualities

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
2,196
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?
 

Sweet Darling

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
Messages
4,130
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.
 
Top