Lenihan looks for pay cut and stay on repossesions in bank recapitalisation plan

nesf

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0209/1233867927938.html?digest=1

The money is coming with many strings attached apparently. There'll be nothing definite until the negotiations are settled though.

Also unsurprising after Gormley's comments yesterday.

Akrasia

forgive me for being very cynical here, this looks much more like lenihan talking tough after the deal has already been signed.

There should be more than just pay cuts or pay freezes for the executives in the banking sector, there should be widespread investigations (with the execs suspended without pay) followed by the sacking without compensation of anyone who behaved in a reckless manner that contributed to the housing bubble and subsequent economic collapse (start with pretty much everyone who was involved in the decision to sell 100% and interest only mortgages to the public and investors)

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

followed by the sacking without compensation of anyone who behaved in a reckless manner that contributed to the housing bubble and subsequent economic collapse

So you'd be looking at sacking the government?

ixoy

Would they have actual grounds for dismissal? I mean the bankers might've behaved unethically but did they do anything illegal or against their job contracts? If not, then surely the government/bank would be open to a lawsuit.

Now by all means put legisaltion and rules in place now, but you can't retro-actively apply them.

Mr.Micro

To my mind there is not a lot that Lenihan can do and his tough talking is as shallow as it is hollow and BS in my opinion. He has no real clout, and is just a facilitator in the form of Minister for Finance.

The bit about putting a stay on repossessions, will surely put a spanner in the works for any bank trying to clear its books and get going. Will this apply to all or just developers or home mortgages. It sounds a liitle bit like mickey mouse economics to me more like a hope that the banks will play ball.

Victor

stay on repossesions

I don't like this. If people are let away with not paying, others will start not paying.

nesf

Victor wrote: »

I don't like this. If people are let away with not paying, others will start not paying.

It depends on how it's done, if what happens is that what's owed is added to the original loan then people don't escape paying. It's populist nonsense really but it's hard to see them not asking for it given the public mood on the issue.

Akrasia

As I suspected, there is apparently nothing in the deal to force banks to reduce executive salaries.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bank-bailout--to-go-ahead-without-deal-over-salaries-1634083.html

The banks get to continue 'self regulating' so the rest of us can get shafted.

Sizzler

For anybody who knows someone that works in either of the big two banks there has been constant speculation of anything between 10-20% of workforce redundancies.

Two things spring to mind, the workers at the coal face were not creaming the cash nor were they at fault for their executives decision making so why should they suffer? Also, it would be an absolute disgrace to allow the banks drop 1000-2000 staff after the govt pumps in €7 BILLION. I mean the govt can only coax and encourage the likes of DELL to stay here to a point but if they allow the banks to drop a few more thousand on the dole Q even though they are bailing them out then I am sorry, they should be hung for it.

mike65

nesf wrote: »

. There'll be nothing definite until the negotiations are settled though.

Now there's a word that should be redundent for the time being. Just bloody do it, if they don't like it sack them and appoint a board of yes men from another country.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Victor wrote: »

I don't like this. If people are let away with not paying, others will start not paying.

And if people can't afford payments because they've fired due to an economy they had no power over, they'll have their home repossesed.

thebman

Victor wrote: »

I don't like this. If people are let away with not paying, others will start not paying.

I don't agree completely with that.

They can see if you have funds in your account. You keep your money in the bank. If your getting a pay check they know you should be paying.

If you are receiving money from social welfare then your not going to be able to afford it.

Or the government could do the evaluation. Not really rocket science. The only problem is the implications for the banks of not pulling people who can't pay on their lack of payments. How does that make them look like somwhere you'd invest your money?

seamus

I posted this before when Enda Kenny first suggested this at their ard fheis: It shouldn't be as simple as, "Don't worry about your mortgage for a year there". It should be a significant financial step which an individual must take and which must prevent them from getting any credit (incl. cards and overdrafts) for 5 years and should restrict their ability to get credit for ten years.

That would remove the "Well I'm not paying" aspect of it.