Irish Deposit Guarantee Raised to 100K/Government backing Irish banks

unclebill98

stepbar wrote: »

You can't expect the state to pick up the tab for banks that are effectivly domiciled / regulated from another country. They have a parent bank to bail them out. Irish banks effectively didn't before yesterday. If the British, Belgian, Danish and Dutch Governments so wish to provide guarentee facilities they should be encouraged to do so but I highly doubt they will.

Thats the thing, nothing UB does is ruled by anyone other than the Irish rules. NIB are ruled by the Danish laws. So its seem to be unfair that when a bank 100% follows Irish law and then is suddenly no longer protected by the new one, its unfair. Don't get me wrong, I'm not all UB this UB that, but there are lots of people whom are very tied up with there business in UB and are now simply faced with not being as protected as the other Irish banks. For all intents and purposes UB are an Irish bank. I really do not see them going under at all nor any other major Irish bank.

Diarmuid wrote: »

eh... The UK government guaranteed 100% NR deposits a while ago giving them an unfair advantage. Nothing was done over that, why change that precedent?

Cause we are not England. It is unfair, people left the other banks in droves to go to NR.

BendiBus

stepbar wrote: »

You can't expect the state to pick up the tab for banks that are effectivly domiciled / regulated from another country.

The state will happily take tax off foreign companies domiciled in Ireland so why not?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

stepbar

BendiBus wrote: »

The state will happily take tax off foreign companies domiciled in Ireland so why not?

And pay significantly less tax then they would in their own country :rolleyes: so I think we can disregard that argument. Anyhow, a bit apples and oranges TBH and has no relivance to this thread....

Toots

redroar1942 wrote: »

Needless to say you work for either BOI or AIB.

...or Anglo, or Irish Life & Permanent (PTSB), or EBS, or Irish Nationwide. All of these are covered by the Government Guarantee.

If BOI UK operated a retail service, you can bet your ass the UK government wouldn't bail them out if they went bust! Why should the Irish government do cover foreign owned banks? The reason they've issued this guarantee (aside from trying to bring about a bit of stability in the economy), is because they are confident that these 6 Irish owned institutions are in no danger of collapse. They haven't got the same certainty about foreign owned banks. I'm not saying for a second that any of them are going to run into trouble, but the solvency of the Irish banks is regulated by the Financial Regulator. The solvency of the other banks is regulated by the regulatory body in their respective country.

redroar1942

stepbar wrote: »

And your point is......?

That your posts are a bit one eyed.I imagine you'd be singing a different tune if you worked for ulster bank etc. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

unclebill98

Toots85 wrote: »

...or Anglo, or Irish Life & Permanent (PTSB), or EBS, or Irish Nationwide. All of these are covered by the Government Guarantee.

If BOI UK operated a retail service, you can bet your ass the UK government wouldn't bail them out if they went bust! Why should the Irish government do cover foreign owned banks? The reason they've issued this guarantee (aside from trying to bring about a bit of stability in the economy), is because they are confident that these 6 Irish owned institutions are in no danger of collapse. They haven't got the same certainty about foreign owned banks. I'm not saying for a second that any of them are going to run into trouble, but the solvency of the Irish banks is regulated by the Financial Regulator. The solvency of the other banks is regulated by the regulatory body in their respective country.

Other banks!!! Most of the other banks are regulated by the Irish system? There an Irish business in ever sense of the word except there owners are not.

BOI's uk operation may well be governed by Irish law, I am not sure about that. You know as well as i do if they could get the same treatment as NR over there they would. hence why UB are trying to get the same cover offered to the rest.

Anyway this aul stuff can runs for treads. There are foreign banks governed by Irish law and there are foreign banks governed by the country there owner resides. Not sure if the Irish government will decide if this makes a difference.

As daveire pointed out there is more to the deal than deposit protection.

stepbar

redroar1942 wrote: »

That your posts are a bit one eyed.I imagine you'd be singing a different tune if you worked for ulster bank etc. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

O... so that's your point, which...... really isn't a point but a personal point regarding my posts and the content within. Doesn't warrent a comment because your post was totally irrelevant.

Now, can I ask what's your view?

stepbar

Toots85 wrote: »

...or Anglo, or Irish Life & Permanent (PTSB), or EBS, or Irish Nationwide. All of these are covered by the Government Guarantee.

If BOI UK operated a retail service, you can bet your ass the UK government wouldn't bail them out if they went bust! Why should the Irish government do cover foreign owned banks? The reason they've issued this guarantee (aside from trying to bring about a bit of stability in the economy), is because they are confident that these 6 Irish owned institutions are in no danger of collapse. They haven't got the same certainty about foreign owned banks. I'm not saying for a second that any of them are going to run into trouble, but the solvency of the Irish banks is regulated by the Financial Regulator. The solvency of the other banks is regulated by the regulatory body in their respective country.

That's an important point that Toots has raised.

stepbar

unclebill98 wrote: »

BOI's uk operation may well begoverned by Irish law, I am not sure about that. You know as well as i do if they could get the same treatment as NR over there they would. hence why UB are trying to get the same cover offered to the rest.

BOI UK and some products provided to the Post Office are fully covered under the enhanced government scheme as they are regulated from Ireland and not the UK. NR / B&B and BOI (AIB, Angle etc) are in one of the same boats at the moment so there's no comparison to be made here.

BoSI, UB etc are in a different suitation as they can effectivly tap funds from their parent bank(s). Up until yesterday the Irish banks didn't have this luxury for various reasons (which I may add understanding why is still beyond belief).

Toots

AFAIK An Irish owned bank (BOI AIB etc), are regulated by the Irish Financial Regulator.

Foreign owned banks operating in Ireland are authorised by the Irish Financial Regulator, and must comply with Irish law, ie Consumer Credit Act, but they are regulated by the regulatory body of their own country. However the regulatory body in the host country (Ireland in this case) has the power to enforce their laws and codes of practice.

I did a diploma in this last year, and can hardly remember any of what was on it cos it was so unbelieveably boring, so I'm open to correction on the above.:o I must try and root out the book from the course and see what exactly the story is.

redroar1942

stepbar wrote: »

O... so that's your point, which...... really isn't a point but a personal point regarding my posts and the content where within. Doesn't warrent a comment because your post was totally irrelevant.

Now, can I ask what's your view?

You can dress it up anyway you want and the content THERE within has to measured against your natural bias. If I was working in BOI and I was told that no matter what my company did to put itself in the postion it was in it did'nt matter I'd be very pro this decesion too.

My point is that the majority of us here are directly affected by this decision and we want to believe that this is the perfect solution without fully taking into account the possible pitfalls. Mainly because we fear the alternatives. I think the motion is too all encompassing at least two of the six covered are the architects of their own demise and should be let go to the wall. We've had a position where there was complete mismanagement of some institutions and now we're basically giving them a carte blanche to act without consequence.

Just another opinion.

jmayo

stepbar wrote: »

You can't expect the state to pick up the tab for banks that are effectivly domiciled / regulated from another country. They have a parent bank to bail them out. Irish banks effectively didn't before yesterday. If the British, Belgian, Danish and Dutch Governments so wish to provide guarentee facilities they should be encouraged to do so but I highly doubt they will.

It is nice that you have finally admitted that the state (i.e. us taxpayers) may have to pick up the tab for the incompetence and recklessness of some of our Irish banks.
No wonder yourself and your colleague toots85 are slapping each other on the back everytime one of you make one of your comments.
Nobody seems to know how much possible bad debts are out there?
You mentioned in previous post on this or another thread how government could not allow major two banks go to the wall.
If the mindset of the people running these banks is that the Irish taxpayer will bail us out, then you and your colleagues need a good kick in the arse and introduction to reality. The Irish taxpayer is not there to bail out the incompetents, any bailout should come with major penalties and these should not be passed onto the ordinary customers.
Yes all we hear is that the banks have loads of assets to cover their loans. Wee Willie O'Dea was trotting out that comment the other night. Would some of these assets be the property that the developers used as collateral because we all know how valuable that is today ?

If any of the banks/institutions have to avail of the government guarantees or of any state funds, the state should take a stakeholding and then proceed to remove the top echelon of executives that run the bank and they are only to be given statutory redundancy.
Also somebody needs to do major rethink on Central Bank, the banking regulator and how they have managed to allow Irish banks to operate over the last 5/6 years.
Bankers should learn that there are consequences to their reckless actions.

My name is Mud

Toots85 wrote: »

Foreign owned banks operating in Ireland are authorised by the Irish Financial Regulator, and must comply with Irish law, ie Consumer Credit Act, but they are regulated by the regulatory body of their own country. However the regulatory body in the host country (Ireland in this case) has the power to enforce their laws and codes of practice.

I'm open to correction on the above

Yes and No

http://www.financialregulator.ie/data/rf_files/Register%20of%20Credit%20Institutions%20at%2031%20August.pdf

parsi

stepbar wrote: »

You can't expect the state to pick up the tab for banks that are effectivly domiciled / regulated from another country. They have a parent bank to bail them out. Irish banks effectively didn't before yesterday. If the British, Belgian, Danish and Dutch Governments so wish to provide guarentee facilities they should be encouraged to do so but I highly doubt they will.

But but but I thought your arguments up to now is that the Irish banks were absolutely and utterly totally rock solid so why should the addition of a few of your competitors make any difference ?

After all the story up to now is that there won't be any "tab to be picked up" because our boys were really really cautious and have gabillions of assets and only went for 100% mortages because the other boys were offering them.

Having said that let their parent companies guarantee them or else we'll suddenly find loan-books being transferred to Irish-backed subsidiaries in the same way multinationals move around their profits to benefit from corporation tax.

Toots

jmayo wrote: »

It is nice that you have finally admitted that the state (i.e. us taxpayers) may have to pick up the tab for the incompetence and recklessness of some of our Irish banks.

See what I did there?;) TBH, the likelihood of that happening is very very slim. Would you care to back that statement up with some examples of the 'recklessness' you speak of?

No wonder yourself and your colleague toots85 are slapping each other on the back everytime one of you make one of your comments.

Oh yes, us BOI Bankers stick together you know! :rolleyes: Maybe I 'slap him on the back' for making a good point, rather than just scaremongering and making negative and unhelpful comments that have no use other than to potentially cause people to worry unnecessarily.

Nobody seems to know how much possible bad debts are out there?
You mentioned in previous post on this or another thread how government could not allow major two banks go to the wall.
If the mindset of the people running these banks is that the Irish taxpayer will bail us out, then you and your colleagues need a good kick in the arse and introduction to reality. The Irish taxpayer is not there to bail out the incompetents, any bailout should come with major penalties and these should not be passed onto the ordinary customers.

I don't know where you're getting this from. The whole reason that the government has given this guarantee is that they are confident that these banks are stable, well run institutions that are not in danger of collapse. I doubt they'd have issued such a guarantee if they feared that AIB or BOI or the others were going to go to the wall, as it would have cost them billions.

Yes all we hear is that the banks have loads of assets to cover their loans. Wee Willie O'Dea was trotting out that comment the other night. Would some of these assets be the property that the developers used as collateral because we all know how valuable that is today?

Can't speak for other banks, but in the case of BOI, the majority of our loans are given from our deposit base, so no, this isn't the case. They're one of, if not the most conservative lenders in the market, as anyone who's ever tried to get a mortgage from them will know.

Also somebody needs to do major rethink on Central Bank, the banking regulator and how they have managed to allow Irish banks to operate over the last 5/6 years.
Bankers should learn that there are consequences to their reckless actions.

FYI, the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator are the same body. Personally I don't think they're doing a bad job. None of the Irish banks have indicated that they may be in a position that they require a loan or bailout from the state. Again, would you care to provide some examples of these reckless actions? It's comments like these that have people panicking and moving their money from bank to bank, or taking out huge amounts of cash and keeping it in their homes.

As I said, if you can back up any of what you say with concrete examples, then I'll gladly eat my words.

stepbar

redroar1942 wrote: »

You can dress it up anyway you want and the content THERE within has to measured against your natural bias. If I was working in BOI and I was told that no matter what my company did to put itself in the postion it was in it did'nt matter I'd be very pro this decesion too.

My point is that the majority of us here are directly affected by this decision and we want to believe that this is the perfect solution without fully taking into account the possible pitfalls. Mainly because we fear the alternatives. I think the motion is too all encompassing at least two of the six covered are the architects of their own demise and should be let go to the wall. We've had a position where there was complete mismanagement of some institutions and now we're basically giving them a carte blanche to act without consequence.

Just another opinion.

Care to tell us who the 2 are? Do you have any specific knowledge / information that would back up the statement highlighted?

jmayo wrote: »

It is nice that you have finally admitted that the state (i.e. us taxpayers) may have to pick up the tab for the incompetence and recklessness of some of our Irish banks.

I think Toots has covered that one off.

No wonder yourself and your colleague toots85 are slapping each other on the back everytime one of you make one of your comments.

Do you know what? check the post above....

Nobody seems to know how much possible bad debts are out there?

Google is your friend sir.

You mentioned in previous post on this or another thread how government could not allow major two banks go to the wall. If the mindset of the people running these banks is that the Irish taxpayer will bail us out, then you and your colleagues need a good kick in the arse and introduction to reality. The Irish taxpayer is not there to bail out the incompetents, any bailout should come with major penalties and these should not be passed onto the ordinary customers.

I really wish there was a yawn symbol.....

Yes all we hear is that the banks have loads of assets to cover their loans. Wee Willie O'Dea was trotting out that comment the other night. Would some of these assets be the property that the developers used as collateral because we all know how valuable that is today ?

I'm sure they are. Property isn't the only asset class in the world.

If any of the banks/institutions have to avail of the government guarantees or of any state funds, the state should take a stakeholding and then proceed to remove the top echelon of executives that run the bank and they are only to be given statutory redundancy.

Nobody's disagreeing with you there. I'm sure they won't be needing the redundancy.

Also somebody needs to do major rethink on Central Bank, the banking regulator and how they have managed to allow Irish banks to operate over the last 5/6 years.
Bankers should learn that there are consequences to their reckless actions.

And of course there's always 2 sides to every coin.... BTW would you care to give us any examples of these so called "reckless actions".

parsi wrote: »

But but but I thought your arguments up to now is that the Irish banks were absolutely and utterly totally rock solid so why should the addition of a few of your competitors make any difference ?

After all the story up to now is that there won't be any "tab to be picked up" because our boys were really really cautious and have gabillions of assets and only went for 100% mortages because the other boys were offering them.

Having said that let their parent companies guarantee them or else we'll suddenly find loan-books being transferred to Irish-backed subsidiaries in the same way multinationals move around their profits to benefit from corporation tax.

It would make a difference for the very reason you mentioned. I was using a scenario to explain my reasoning, doesn't mean it's fact.

However, I'm not really sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me

unclebill98

I love this attitude that the bank lent money wrecklessly to people. For years people moaned about not being able to get a foot on the ladder cause of the massive deposits needed to buy a house(I was one), then one bank decides lets do 100% mortgages. What a great idea everyone shouted. So the rest of the banks decided they had to do the same or be left behind. Thousands of people went out and got new cars and spent thousands based on the fact they have a nest egg called an SSIA.

Its called supply and demand. Every business is ruled by that.

nlgbbbblth

No bank has ever put a gun to someone's head and said 'take this loan or I blow your f*cking brains out'.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions.

dotsman

Banks just make good whipping boys for all this. They're big, faceless, evil corporations that the common joe doesn't understand. And in this country we're obsessed with hating wealthy people so "bankers" are an easy target. Yet, most people don't even know what a banker is (and no, the answer is NOT someone who works in a bank)!

Personally, I blame the banks for global warming, crucifying Jesus and forming boybands. shakes fist

stepbar

Christ it's all give and take. People are stupid at the end of the day. If anything blame competition. There's a good chance if the BOI wasn't prepared to give a loan the BOSI would.....visa or no visa.....

parsi

Banks were like parents really.

When they were firm & strict they were criticised but when you grew up you realised that they were right.

When they were laissez-faire they were loved but when you grew up (or the bubble burst) you realised that they were wrong, very very wrong.

I got my mortgage at the tail-end of the former period and I'm a tad annoyed that my household is now the guarantor for 300,000 of someone elses debt.

I can get over the 100% mortgages to a certain extent but what really annoyed me were the 30 year mortgages - you'd look at somebody and realise that they'd be damn close to retirement before they'd be finisehed their mortgage (let'sface it how many people would _actually_ pay it off early?).

Supply and demand is all well and good. However sometimes it has to be regulated for our own good because as humans we are wildly divergent in our wants and needs but at the end of the day we are a touch greedy and often fail to see the long-term impact.

Society as a whole is to be blamed for the property bubble - we all wanted to make money. However I do have issues about guaranteeing the debt of the financial professionals - who couldn't keep their own house in order - at the expense of Joe Public.

In this case the "people are stupid" comment applies just as much to Joe Public as the denizens of BankCentre and Baggot Street....

dotsman

parsi wrote: »

Banks were like parents really.

When they were firm & strict they were criticised but when you grew up you realised that they were right.

When they were laissez-faire they were loved but when you grew up (or the bubble burst) you realised that they were wrong, very very wrong.

I got my mortgage at the tail-end of the former period and I'm a tad annoyed that my household is now the guarantor for 300,000 of someone elses debt.

I can get over the 100% mortgages to a certain extent but what really annoyed me were the 30 year mortgages - you'd look at somebody and realise that they'd be damn close to retirement before they'd be finisehed their mortgage (let'sface it how many people would _actually_ pay it off early?).

Supply and demand is all well and good. However sometimes it has to be regulated for our own good because as humans we are wildly divergent in our wants and needs but at the end of the day we are a touch greedy and often fail to see the long-term impact.

Society as a whole is to be blamed for the property bubble - we all wanted to make money. However I do have issues about guaranteeing the debt of the financial professionals - who couldn't keep their own house in order - at the expense of Joe Public.

In this case the "people are stupid" comment applies just as much to Joe Public as the denizens of BankCentre and Baggot Street....

I agree to an extent. However on your point of 30 year mortgages, only a fool would still be paying in 30 years time. You must take into account inflation. If your repayments are only 2,000 per month at the moment, then in 20 years time, your repayments will only be half that in today's money assuming a low rate of inflation. If the inflation rate is high, you will be paying much less!

In most cases it is best to revise your mortgage every 5 years.

jmayo

I just love the bankers love in we have going here.
Why do I get the feeling a few of you work for BOI.
Please get some sleep and then hopefully you don't keep cocking up my foreign transfers :rolleyes:

All I keep hearing is everything is ok, stop scare mongering, you don't know what you are talking about, give us examples of recklessness, if our institution didn't give it to you someone else would and anyway it is your own fault because you took the money you idiots.

Sure there is nothing wrong, just move along now.
Yeah that is why the minister of finance made a move to guarantee the six Irish institutions in the early hours of the morning and woke everyone and anyone to tell them :rolleyes:
Who exactly made the call to the Dept of Finance/Minister the other night looking for a dig out, to use FFs usual terminology ?
Or maybe he was just sitting in bed and it came to him as a real bright idea that he would committ 400billion, which at some estimates would take 35 years of tax returns to repay, to our home grown banking sector.
You know some people actually believe that a small Irish bank should have been left go to the wall, just as Lehmans in the states, to provide a very salient lesson to the rest.

BTW I know that he had most likely to committ or do something to prevent the collapse of our economy.
What rankles is that you guys, the bankers don't seem to appreciate that most of us plebs are very concerned and frankly don't know what to believe anymore. We do know that we may be staring into an abyss that will not alone affect our lives but also those of our children.

We see institutions that have made fortunes over the last number of years, had huge share prices and rewarded their top executives with huge bonuses. Some of these are now possibly tottering on the brink and require assurances to allow them to keep trading and not collapse taking what's left of our economy with them.

Would any other business be guaranteed ?
Probably not, and this really pi**** off a lot of hard working people (in this country and throughout the world) who will never have the luxury of getting a golden parachute which seems to be available to banks.
Yes we know that banks provide the lifeblood money for the economy, but please try and remember the next time you sound off at us the plebs, we are the ones that ultimately may be saving your ar**.
And yes I know we may be possibly saving our own ass too, but saving the banks may come at an unknown ultimate cost?

gurramok

BOI subsidary Bristol & West were giving out 110% mortgages in the UK, thats wreckless.

BuffyBot

BOI subsidary Bristol & West were giving out 110% mortgages in the UK, thats wreckless.

Not nessecarily. It depends who is getting them. And this is crux of the matter, there is no absolutes.

And a final warning to people. Let's keep this on-topic and stop the personal sniping. If it continues, the thread won't - and that would be a shame.

gurramok

BuffyBot wrote: »

Not nessecarily. It depends who is getting them. And this is crux of the matter, there is no absolutes.

<snip>

gurramok

Contd:
<snip>

BuffyBot

I've removed the whole article. I assume you haven't had permission to reproduce all of that, and it certainly goes beyond what would be considered fair use. Link people to the article if you wish

Toots

parsi wrote: »

Banks were like parents really.

When they were firm & strict they were criticised but when you grew up you realised that they were right.

When they were laissez-faire they were loved but when you grew up (or the bubble burst) you realised that they were wrong, very very wrong.

I got my mortgage at the tail-end of the former period and I'm a tad annoyed that my household is now the guarantor for 300,000 of someone elses debt.

I can get over the 100% mortgages to a certain extent but what really annoyed me were the 30 year mortgages - you'd look at somebody and realise that they'd be damn close to retirement before they'd be finisehed their mortgage (let'sface it how many people would _actually_ pay it off early?).

Supply and demand is all well and good. However sometimes it has to be regulated for our own good because as humans we are wildly divergent in our wants and needs but at the end of the day we are a touch greedy and often fail to see the long-term impact.

Society as a whole is to be blamed for the property bubble - we all wanted to make money. However I do have issues about guaranteeing the debt of the financial professionals - who couldn't keep their own house in order - at the expense of Joe Public.

In this case the "people are stupid" comment applies just as much to Joe Public as the denizens of BankCentre and Baggot Street....

Sure when I was looking for my mortgage one bank offered me a 40 year mortgage!!! I thought 30 years was the absolute max you could get. I thought that was because I was so young getting it (I was 20), but my OH's sister was also offered one, and she's 35, her partner's 38, so he'd be nearly 70 paying it off??? In the end I got my mortgage through where I work and took it over 30yrs which isn't too bad, but I don't see how anyone could expect someone who was nearly 70 to have the same income as they did in their 30s and 40s!

I also heard on the radio this morning that the banks are going to have to pay for this government guarantee in some way (the deal's still being thrashed out) which is only fair.