Should Irish bank bosses say sorry like their UK counterparts have done?

gurramok

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7880292.stm

Its a simple question of acknowledgment. It may make a start to reconcile with the public opinion as well as their shareholders and the markets plus it might help give a small confidence boost for the sector.

Irish bank bosses have been awfully quiet on their banks touching insolvency, not showing some responsibility for their reckless actions during the bubble years.

So should they apologise? Would like to hear from bank employee posters as well on this!

mike65

Yes, and then gracefully accept a p45.

Phototoxin

This is Ireland, in the realm of politics no one is accountable

José Alaninho

They should apologise from behind bars.

stepbar

gurramok wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7880292.stm

Its a simple question of acknowledgment. It may make a start to reconcile with the public opinion as well as their shareholders and the markets plus it might help give a small confidence boost for the sector.

Irish bank bosses have been awfully quiet on their banks touching insolvency, not showing some responsibility for their reckless actions during the bubble years.

So should they apologise? Would like to hear from bank employee posters as well on this!

What exactly would you like them to be sorry for?

Red Sleeping Beauty

I concur with my right honourable friends

Mr. Presentable

Where's the point? Apologising won't undo what has been done, so what would be served by it?

Sleipnir

The U.K. bosses saying sorry just pissed me off.

"Hee hee, I'm so rich after all those bonuses I got for short term gains that put the bank at huge risk"
"SORRY"

(still rich....!)

P. Breathnach

José Alaninho wrote: »

They should apologise from behind bars.

If you want that, perhaps you might tell us what laws you think they have broken.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Rich people are notorious egotists,

"Sorry" + humble pie = ?

Robbo

I really don't see what kind of help this type of mindless platitude will bring. Only a fully thought out "Naughty Step" system can get us out of this mess with Jo Frost as official government banking tsarina.

BroomBurner

Their apologies were meaningless words.

Maybe a review of the whole financial system, and putting a stop to how they were using loans and debts to get more money, etc. etc. would be better than an empty plaudit.

Soldie

Or maybe we should blame ourselves for borrowing more than we could afford, and blame the government for creating a situation where that was even possible.

mike65

Hence the paperwork that should follow an apology.

BroomBurner

Soldie wrote: »

Or maybe we should blame ourselves for borrowing more than we could afford, and blame the government for creating a situation where that was even possible.

While hindsight is a wonderful thing, can you imagine the uproar from ordinary people if the Irish government decided to go against what every other country was doing and not open up the markets to them? Not to mention what the EU response would be.

In fact, I don't even know if the government can be entirely to blame for this. The entire world was in on it.

Any insights?

stepbar

Nobody disagrees with having a review of the finacial system. What annoys me is joe public and the retarded notion that the bankers should be sorry for something. Should bankers now be responcible for your house being worth less than it was 2 years ago? Or maybe Joe Public is a bit peeved off because the execs were massive bonuses. Christ Joe Public, you may hand back your bonuses, you probably didn't deserve them either!

Next thing you'll see someone trying to blame bankers for global warming. If anything the Government is more responcible for allowing the property bubble happen than anyone else. Allowing developers to keep massive landbanks thus squeezing supply and increasing demand, allowing investors to have multiple properties without having some sort of property tax to negate the fact that one individual should have no need for any more than (perhaps) a holiday home, a private dwelling and 1 investment property, feeding the growth with Section 23 / 50, Hotel developments / Car parks with tax incentives and so on. Creating an economy where 1 job in 10 was in construction! Madness.

BroomBurner

Have to agree with you Stepbar, it was an entirely unsustainable system and shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

gurramok

stepbar wrote: »

What exactly would you like them to be sorry for?

Reckless lending to developers. Billions upon billions lent out to developers has lead to the near insolvency of the banking system.(bank guarantee has delayed that day for a short bit)

Soldie wrote: »

Or maybe we should blame ourselves for borrowing more than we could afford, and blame the government for creating a situation where that was even possible.

Reckless lending to developers is where the present problems lie, not residential mortgages. Yes, when the next stage of mass defaulting of mortgages occurs, both lender and borrower are culpable.

Of course, there was hardly any regulation from Neary.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you want that, perhaps you might tell us what laws you think they have broken.

Fitzpatrick comes to mind, the Garda fraud squad are on the case. Reckless lending to developers, both here and abroad has lead to a near collapse of our banking system.
Somehow banks never thought that asset values can decrease, pretty poor judgment.

Soldie

BroomBurner wrote: »

While hindsight is a wonderful thing, can you imagine the uproar from ordinary people if the Irish government decided to go against what every other country was doing and not open up the markets to them? Not to mention what the EU response would be.

In fact, I don't even know if the government can be entirely to blame for this. The entire world was in on it.

Any insights?

The problem is that the government did more than 'open up the markets' - they distorted them, in providing a ridiculous amount of cheap credit by meddling with interest rates, despite ample warning that doing so was unsustainable. Just how long did they think an economy based on selling houses to eachother was sustainble for anyway? None of the major parties made mention of the 'worrying times ahead' in their election manifestos in 2007, at least.

I feel little sympathy for those who took out 100% mortgages for amounts they would never have been able to afford in normal circumstances, and are now spending their time wagging their fingers at anyone but themselves.

gurramok wrote:

Reckless lending to developers is where the present problems lie, not residential mortgages.

But ultimately who was responsible for this 'reckless lending'? The government provided incentive for the banks to loan by having artificially low interest rates, the banks did what they're in business to do - make money. Were we to expect the banks to act more conservatively in spite of the government enticing them to do otherwise?

jmayo

stepbar wrote: »

What exactly would you like them to be sorry for?

Perhaps a couple of them might apologsie for dragging this country's reputation through the gutter, not to mention increasing the interest we pay on borrowing.
Have I even mentioned how they have screwed all the taxpayers by lumping us with massive debts.

Also a couple need to apologise to shareholders who bought shares in their bank.
Shares that were artifically held up by bank giving loans to golden circle to buy the banks own shares.
In most countries that would be seen as semi illegal, but I guess Ireland is different once again.

Perhaps then we can move along to fact that directors effectively hid loans, and moved these loans to another facilitating financial institution, so that they would not appear on annual auditied accounts.

Then of course there is fact that another institution moved large billion euro deposit into another instution at finanical year end.
Was this another distortion of the stability of the institution ?

Of course a brass neck in your business seems to be a prerequsite as shown by the ones at the top.
Oh of course you shout, they nothing illegal.
Ever heard of the word ethics in your business?
By the looks of it, it is one word not appeaing much in banking manuals.

BTW did you get your raise ?
Don't answer that, Mods may deem that badgering the poster and we wouldn't wnat to that.

mike65

Soldie wrote: »

T


But ultimately who was responsible for this 'reckless lending'? The government provided incentive for the banks to loan by having artificially low interest rates, the banks did what they're in business to do - make money. Were we to expect the banks to act more conservatively in spite of the government enticing them to do otherwise?

The Gubberment were helpless, the ECB sets the rates (for Germany/France, not us).

stepbar

gurramok wrote: »

Reckless lending to developers. Billions upon billions lent out to developers has lead to the near insolvency of the banking system.(bank guarantee has delayed that day for a short bit)



Reckless lending to developers is where the present problems lie, not residential mortgages. Yes, when the next stage of mass defaulting of mortgages occurs, both lender and borrower are culpable.

Of course, there was hardly any regulation from Neary.



Fitzpatrick comes to mind, the Garda fraud squad are on the case. Reckless lending to developers, both here and abroad has lead to a near collapse of our banking system.
Somehow banks Joe Public never thought that asset values can decrease, pretty poor judgment.

Reckness lending? Jeasus you'd sware the banks went up to the CIF and said "Here boys, share a 100billion amoungst ye there and shur don't worry about paying it back... there's load more where that came from!!!"
The bank forms an opinion based on what the borrower discloses, professional advice (valuers, estate agents) and from internal resources. People gave out when the banks were giving 92%, they gave out when some offered 100% and when some others started offering 120% Joe Public was happy.

Some of our lessor known banks in this country were well known to hand out mortgages (up to 45 years) in some cases to individuals on work permits and god knows what else. Of course a lot done through dodgy brokers who knew how to bend the truth.

As for Fitzpatrick, no one has yet been able to tell us exactly what laws he broke. So what about the fraud squad investigating? Only rag top public would expect a retarded reaction like that :rolleyes: If there was a law broken I suspect he'd be now eating soup behind bars in Mountjoy.

mike65

stepbar wrote: »

If there was a law broken I suspect he'd be now eating soup behind bars in Mountjoy.

Any case will be years in the compiling and when/if a case is proven (on papar) months before a date is set and the trial, if that ever happened would take weeks, and then he wouldn't go to jail anyway.

José Alaninho

stepbar wrote: »

If there was a law broken I suspect he'd be now eating soup behind bars in Mountjoy.

I can give no simpler response to such naivety than to laugh my head off. :rolleyes: You really think the members of Fianna Fail's cosy cartel are accountable to any corporate laws? Wake up.

*sigh*

stepbar

jmayo wrote: »

Perhaps a couple of them might apologsie for dragging this country's reputation through the gutter

LOL. The Government had no problem doing that one themselves

, not to mention increasing the interest we pay on borrowing.

Last time I heard the ECB rate fell.


Have I even mentioned how they have screwed all the taxpayers by lumping us with massive debts.

In return for equity stakes yeah?

Also a couple need to apologise to shareholders who bought shares in their bank.
Shares that were artifically held up by bank giving loans to golden circle to buy the banks own shares.
In most countries that would be seen as semi illegal, but I guess Ireland is different once again.

Buy a few shares did we?

Perhaps then we can move along to fact that directors effectively hid loans, and moved these loans to another facilitating financial institution, so that they would not appear on annual auditied accounts.

With respect, it's nobody's business who much or for what purpose a person has borrowed money for. Sloppy by SP but nothing illegal.

Then of course there is fact that another institution moved large billion euro deposit into another instution at finanical year end.
Was this another distortion of the stability of the institution ?

Probably has better deposit rates. LOL

Of course a brass neck in your business seems to be a prerequsite as shown by the ones at the top.
Oh of course you shout, they nothing illegal.
Ever heard of the word ethics in your business?
By the looks of it, it is one word not appeaing much in banking manuals.

So lending money is not ethical now?

BTW did you get your raise ?

I'll happily answer that one. No. Did you get yours?

.

stepbar

José Alaninho wrote: »

I can give no simpler response to such naivety than to laugh my head off. :rolleyes: You really think the members of Fianna Fail's cosy cartel are accountable to any corporate laws? Wake up.

*sigh*

Well then you might "nievely" tell us what law you "think" he broke? Answers on a postcard, eh?

You're one of the very reasons I hate Joe Public at the moment. Very "simple" indeed :rolleyes:

jaffa20

Bank employee here and i aint apologising because you causes a 100% mortgage. :pac::pac:

gurramok

stepbar wrote: »

Reckness lending? Jeasus you'd sware the banks went up to the CIF and said "Here boys, share a 100billion amoungst ye there and shur don't worry about paying it back... there's load more where that came from!!!"
The bank forms an opinion based on what the borrower discloses, professional advice (valuers, estate agents) and from internal resources. People gave out when the banks were giving 92%, they gave out when some offered 100% and when some others started offering 120% Joe Public was happy.

Some of our lessor known banks in this country were well known to hand out mortgages (up to 45 years) in some cases to individuals on work permits and god knows what else. Of course a lot done through dodgy brokers who knew how to bend the truth.

As for Fitzpatrick, no one has yet been able to tell us exactly what laws he broke. So what about the fraud squad investigating? Only rag top public would expect a retarded reaction like that :rolleyes: If there was a law broken I suspect he'd be now eating soup behind bars in Mountjoy.

You sidestepped the issue. There is a rant in your first paragraph about the CIF. The rest is regarding residential mortgaging and soup.

Now, i ask you a question regarding the present situation which has resulted in danger for Irish banks.

Do you think any of the banks were engaged in reckless lending to developers both here and in the UK?

Please justify your answer.

Red Sleeping Beauty

jaffa20 wrote: »

Bank employee here and i aint apologising because you causes wanted a 100% mortgage. :pac::pac:

Bank bosses, bank bosses!

José Alaninho

stepbar wrote: »

Well then you might "nievely" tell us what law you "think" he broke? Answers on a postcard, eh?

You're one of the very reasons I hate Joe Public at the moment. Very "simple" indeed :rolleyes:

So reckless and irresponsible banking practices leading to one of the worst recessions this country has ever faced, backed up by a brainless government intent on pleasing their wealthy party backers, is not a crime? Well it f*ckin should be.

Oh, and just to add, you are one of the very reasons I believe that the Irish people will never learn a damn lesson and not take this **** off the bankers anymore.

And one more thing: I agree that the slew of middle-class, pseudo-D4 twats who borrowed beyond their means and lived it up with money that wasn't even theirs share some of the responsibility for this; but the lion's share of the blame must lie squarely on the shoulders of those who duped them into it.

bonkey

gurramok wrote: »

think any of the banks were engaged in reckless lending to developers both here and in the UK?

Nope.

The banks were recklessly involved in derivatives markets, which they were reliant on to support other activities.

Had the derivatives markets not imploded, the banks would have been absolutely fine and dandy had the Irish housing market collapsed. The home-owners, developers and so on might have been in trouble, but not the banks. While it might be small comfort, on the global scale, the Irish housing market is chump change. The Irish banks were more than covered...as long as the derivatives market served its purpose.

Unfortunately, the global derivatives markets went first, and the knock-on from that caused the Irish housing market to go, which is what in turn caused the housing development market to stall, which is where the banks needed to fall back on the derivatives that had already turned toxic on them.

So no...it wasn't the lending which was reckless. It was the means of securing the lending.

But hey...its just details.