Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    There have been bank collapses solely from the bursting of bubbles in other coutries so it is not inconcievable that the same would not have happened here.
    gurramok wrote:
    As SkepticOne stated, past performance of housing bubbles have always resulted in banking failures. (Finland/Japan for example)

    No, thats not what SkepticOne stated. I've included the comment to illustrate that.

    What was stated is that it has happened previously and it was not inconceivable that it would happen again, not that it is what always happened and therefore was inevitable.


  • Options
    #93
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    gurramok wrote: »
    Ah yes, good excuse Goggin. :rolleyes:

    What I found galling about that interview was the assertion that he was going to be taking a substantial pay cut, and then assuring us that'd be under 2 million.

    And I'm a capitalist son of a bitch.


  • Options
    #94
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    stepbar wrote: »
    What would you like me to clarify? That I think it's wreckless to lend to a person who has no income. Clarified. I'm not defining it.

    So we now know your position that there was no reckless lending by Irish banks at all :rolleyes: as Ninja did not really exist here!
    bonkey wrote: »
    No, thats not what SkepticOne stated. I've included the comment to illustrate that.

    What was stated is that it has happened previously and it was not inconceivable that it would happen again, not that it is what always happened and therefore was inevitable.

    That's been pedantic.

    If the govt did not intervene with capitalisation, we'll be discussing the recent Irish bank busts and the mods would have had about 2 billion threads about hanging bankers from rooftops :D

    Point still stands, if you don't like the word failure, lets dance around it and call it 'potential bank insolvency rescued by taxpayers' for the Irish situation!


  • Options
    #95
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    nesf wrote: »
    What I found galling about that interview was the assertion that he was going to be taking a substantial pay cut, and then assuring us that'd be under 2 million.

    And I'm a capitalist son of a bitch.

    And he seemed to think he was doing us a favour!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #96
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    gurramok wrote: »
    That's been pedantic.

    If the govt did not intervene with capitalisation, we'll be discussing the recent Irish bank busts and the mods would have had about 2 billion threads about hanging bankers from rooftops :D

    Point still stands, if you don't like the word failure, lets dance around it and call it 'potential bank insolvency rescued by taxpayers' for the Irish situation!

    I think it's fair though, housing bubbles don't inevitably bring down the banking system with them. Look at Spain at the moment for instance. Bubble bursting and it's not gone entirely to pot like it has here. Or at least not the last time I looked at it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    nesf wrote: »
    I think it's fair though, housing bubbles don't inevitably bring down the banking system with them. Look at Spain at the moment for instance. Bubble bursting and it's not gone entirely to pot like it has here. Or at least not the last time I looked at it.

    Spain are more or less in the same timing cycle. Similar economic woes to us like overly dependent on construction so its a wait and see on that one.

    Oh, i did say 'banking failures', not 'banking system failures' ;)


  • Options
    #98
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    gurramok wrote: »
    Spain are more or less in the same timing cycle. Similar economic woes to us like overly dependent on construction so its a wait and see on that one.

    Oh, i did say 'banking failures', not 'banking system failures' ;)

    Ah ok, I'd agree that housing bubbles can bring down banks. I thought you were saying that they always bring banking failures on the scale of the Japanese experience.


  • Options
    #99
    stepbar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    gurramok wrote: »
    So we now know your position that there was no reckless lending by Irish banks at all :rolleyes: as Ninja did not really exist here!

    What are you talking about. I said there was poor judgement. I don't agree with the notion that the lending was wreckless because wreckless would be (IMO) throwing out a loan to someone who had no income or means to back up the repayment of such a loan. Surely you know what a Ninja loan is? Surely you're not trying to suggest that we have Ninja loans in Ireland or Europe for that matter?


  • Options
    #100
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    stepbar wrote: »
    What are you talking about. I said there was poor judgement. I don't agree with the notion that the lending was wreckless because wreckless would be (IMO) throwing out a loan to someone who had no income or means to back up the repayment of such a loan. Surely you know what a Ninja loan is? Surely you're not trying to suggest that we have Ninja loans in Ireland or Europe for that matter?

    I gave you a dictionary definition of reckless. Jumping into without thinking of consequences is poor judgement hence reckless.

    You're asking me what a Ninja loan is? :rolleyes:

    Sub-prime Ireland which we both agree is a tiny market and only recently took of in the last 2-3yrs and there were Ninja style loans operating here.

    Why do i bother to explain, just remembered i snapped a pic of an Irish ad around 2 years ago. Here for your pleasant viewing:

    http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x283/gurra2011/Misc/?action=view&current=IrishNinja.jpg

    You've been proven wrong there.


  • Options
    #101
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    gurramok wrote: »
    Why do i bother to explain, just remembered i snapped a pic of an Irish ad around 2 years ago. Here for your pleasant viewing:

    http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x283/gurra2011/Misc/?action=view&current=IrishNinja.jpg

    You've been proven wrong there.

    Neither AIB nor BoI were doing business that way though to be fair. Though I'll be the first to say that such mortgage providers as you pictured will be the taking on extremely high default risk.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    nesf wrote: »
    Neither AIB nor BoI were doing business that way though to be fair. Though I'll be the first to say that such mortgage providers as you pictured will be the taking on extremely high default risk.

    Though it's a reminder that if the credit crisis hadn't happened earlier, this area would be a massive share of the market and non regulated.

    Thank God for the sub prime crisis, not our Regulators.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #103
    stepbar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    By what? The fact that there was dodgy brokers out there representing a group of Sub Prime mortgage providers? :rolleyes: That's a whole different ball game and that is wreckless. Who knows what these guys were at, falsifying docs here and there and passing them off up the line to Start as true copies.

    The impression I get from the US is that no documentation was ever presented for a ninja mortgage application.


  • Options
    #104
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭Pride Fighter


    mike65 wrote: »
    Yes, and then gracefully accept a p45.

    What he said.


  • Options
    #105
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    gurramok wrote: »
    That's been pedantic.
    You misrepresented or misinterpreted SkepticOne's statement.

    You're now apparently trying to argue that its unreasonable of me to show this.

    If you were on a salary of a couple of million, and the future of a bank rested on your correct interpretation of the statement...would it still be unreasonable of me to show the difference to you?

    Should "pedantic" become "accurate" only when enough money is at stake?


  • Options
    #106
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    bonkey wrote: »
    You misrepresented or misinterpreted SkepticOne's statement.

    You're now apparently trying to argue that its unreasonable of me to show this.

    If you were on a salary of a couple of million, and the future of a bank rested on your correct interpretation of the statement...would it still be unreasonable of me to show the difference to you?

    Should "pedantic" become "accurate" only when enough money is at stake?

    This is not the English forum and does not require a masters degree in English to post :D

    Look above at another post, it was already clarified as 'banking failures' rather than 'banking system failures'.

    You are picking words which are related to suit your argument. Anybody can use their masterfulness of the English language to tear apart any posts in the forum.


  • Options
    #107
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    gurramok wrote: »
    This is not the English forum and does not require a masters degree in English to post :D

    This is not the English forum. You're right. Its the Politics forum, and politics is all about nuance.
    Look above at another post, it was already clarified as 'banking failures' rather than 'banking system failures'.
    You also clarified "failure" to mean "potential bank insolvency rescued by taxpayers". I've taken the liberty of italicising the important word you added.

    This clarifies things to the extent that when you said "it must lead to feilure" and I disagreed that it was necessarily inevitable, what you meant was "it must lead to the possibility of failure". In effect, you've admitted my position that it was not a cut-and-dried certainty was correct.
    You are picking words which are related to suit your argument.
    No, gurramok. I've been trying to get agreement that this is not a black-and-white issue where either it was inevitable with no excuse, or that it was unforseeable with no blame. I believe it is important to look at the detail and understand the nuance.

    As I've pointed out above, in order to continue disagreeing with me, you've "clarified" your black-or-white position to be in agreement with me. It wasn't inevitable...it was merely something that had the potential to fail...something that might or might not fail.
    Anybody can use their masterfulness of the English language to tear apart any posts in the forum.
    So that's your excuse? Despite agreeing with me that its not black-and-white, you've been arguing that I'm wrong because your english isn't as good as mine?

    OK. You agree with me. Its not black and white, and if your english was better, you wouldn't have portrayed it that way.

    Fine.

    Now, can we move on?


  • Options
    #108
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    stepbar wrote: »
    By what? The fact that there was dodgy brokers out there representing a group of Sub Prime mortgage providers? :rolleyes: That's a whole different ball game and that is wreckless. Who knows what these guys were at, falsifying docs here and there and passing them off up the line to Start as true copies.

    The impression I get from the US is that no documentation was ever presented for a ninja mortgage application.
    I think the main recklessness in the Irish system was continuing to lend into the bubble. No one knew when it was going to turn, this is true, but they should have known that it would turn and taken precautions accordingly. They should have known, for example, that building almost 100K houses a year was not sustainable, yet they chose to introduce 100% mortgages. They paid economists to produce what they must have known were untruths to convince regulators and policy makers that everything was fine.

    The question of whether it was recklessness or merely bad judgement is one of degree, but because of their actions - not merely the "sub-prime" banks - we are in a much worse situation than otherwise.

    Now, normally the only people a private business would have to account to would be their shareholders. But in the case of the banks, absolutely vast amounts of public money are involved in rescuing them. Hence it is a political issue.


  • Options
    #109
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    bonkey wrote: »
    You also clarified "failure" to mean "potential bank insolvency rescued by taxpayers". I've taken the liberty of italicising the important word you added.

    This clarifies things to the extent that when you said "it must lead to feilure" and I disagreed that it was necessarily inevitable, what you meant was "it must lead to the possibility of failure". In effect, you've admitted my position that it was not a cut-and-dried certainty was correct.


    No, gurramok. I've been trying to get agreement that this is not a black-and-white issue where either it was inevitable with no excuse, or that it was unforseeable with no blame. I believe it is important to look at the detail and understand the nuance.

    As I've pointed out above, in order to continue disagreeing with me, you've "clarified" your black-or-white position to be in agreement with me. It wasn't inevitable...it was merely something that had the potential to fail...something that might or might not fail.


    So that's your excuse? Despite agreeing with me that its not black-and-white, you've been arguing that I'm wrong because your english isn't as good as mine?

    OK. You agree with me. Its not black and white, and if your english was better, you wouldn't have portrayed it that way.

    Fine.

    Now, can we move on?

    No i do not agree, you've picked up the worng end of the stick. It is a black and white issue. Note the word potential, you're using that word for your own end to mean it can or cannot happen. I'm using it for the word can happen.

    Maybe that word should really mean inevitable as in our case we have had rescue packages to save the banks from their own mistakes which have been repeated in numerous bubbles before, if not rescued, those banks have been let to fail.

    Then you use words like 'potential to fail...something that might or might not fail.' Which is it, you're going 50/50?

    You know my position on this, i'll clarify those words so you won't be able to dance around them again. There is an extremely high probability of inevitable bank failure as a result of housing bubbles as it has happened in previous bubbles.

    Happy now with those words so you cannot dance around them and just disagree on the outcome as that your position?


  • Options
    #110
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I think the main recklessness in the Irish system was continuing to lend into the bubble. No one knew when it was going to turn, this is true, but they should have known that it would turn and taken precautions accordingly. They should have known, for example, that building almost 100K houses a year was not sustainable, yet they chose to introduce 100% mortgages. They paid economists to produce what they must have known were untruths to convince regulators and policy makers that everything was fine.

    The question of whether it was recklessness or merely bad judgement is one of degree, but because of their actions - not merely the "sub-prime" banks - we are in a much worse situation than otherwise.

    Now, normally the only people a private business would have to account to would be their shareholders. But in the case of the banks, absolutely vast amounts of public money are involved in rescuing them. Hence it is a political issue.

    Just a couple of points:

    1. The main Irish banks did know the property boom would end and over the last couple of years took steps to ensure that they were well capitalised. Remember all the high profile selling of branches through-out the country. Remember AIB selling their Ballsbridge property? All of this was done to increase the capital the banks had and the timing was no coincidence.

    2. 100% mortgages were a great advertising ploy but they were difficult to get. The smaller banks, like Permanent TSB etc, were more likely to provide them. While all banks offered them (and had for years before they were thrust into the limelight) they were reserved for a very small number of people, e.g. doctors who were not yet on their full salary etc, where employment was secure and salary was guaranteed to go up.

    3. Other than some of this messing with Anglo and Irish Life I don't know of any banks who misled the regulator. To do so is illegal and would mean serious consequences for the bank(s).


  • Options
    #111
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Other than some of this messing with Anglo and Irish Life I don't know of any banks who misled the regulator. To do so is illegal and would mean serious consequences for the bank(s).

    I'll accept the first sentence, and the first part of the second sentence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I'll accept the first sentence, and the first part of the second sentence.

    And what? Provide even anecdotal evidence to the contrary regarding the rest?


  • Options
    #113
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    molloyjh wrote: »
    And what? Provide even anecdotal evidence to the contrary regarding the rest?

    How can one provide evidence of something that never happened? Even with Anglo-Irish and Irish Life & Permanent, where you acknowledge "messing", there appeared to be no serious consequences until the house of cards fell down.


  • Options
    #114
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    gurramok wrote: »
    I gave you a dictionary definition of reckless. Jumping into without thinking of consequences is poor judgement hence reckless.

    You're asking me what a Ninja loan is? :rolleyes:

    Sub-prime Ireland which we both agree is a tiny market and only recently took of in the last 2-3yrs and there were Ninja style loans operating here.

    Why do i bother to explain, just remembered i snapped a pic of an Irish ad around 2 years ago. Here for your pleasant viewing:

    http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x283/gurra2011/Misc/?action=view&current=IrishNinja.jpg

    You've been proven wrong there.

    Are there any figures on how many Irish people were foolish enough to take loans from these types of companies?

    I can't imagine its high. I think most people would be more sensible than that although maybe I have too much faith in my fellow countrymen :(


  • Options
    #115
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Shennanigans with the board of Irish Life & Permanent, taking the pish. Good to see the Minister face them down maybe a signal will be sent. I always thought that Gillian Bowler was nice ;)


  • Options
    #116
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    thebman wrote: »
    Are there any figures on how many Irish people were foolish enough to take loans from these types of companies?

    I can't imagine its high. I think most people would be more sensible than that although maybe I have too much faith in my fellow countrymen :(

    Rte did report before it was about less than 30,000 mortgages. Remember these are mortgages given to those who were turned down by the main banks.

    The main banks did give out 100% mortgages, about 33% of mortgages in 2006 if i remember correctly were 100%(another poster may have the correct figure) but these were indeed based on the applicants actually having a job :)
    mike65 wrote:
    Shennanigans with the board of Irish Life & Permanent, taking the pish. Good to see the Minister face them down maybe a signal will be sent. I always thought that Gillian Bowler was nice

    A rash of resignations, this points towards something dodgy did indeed go on.


  • Options
    #117
    akaredtop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 182 ✭✭akaredtop


    I cannot see what the bankers did wrong.


  • Options
    #118
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Which bit? Fraudaulent use of funds to deceive the market? or something else?


  • Options
    #119
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    akaredtop wrote: »
    I cannot see what the bankers did wrong.

    Neither can they.


  • Options
    #120
    Dark_lord_ire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 124 ✭✭Dark_lord_ire


    what happens in the states??? bank bosses before courts facing big jail time. In the UK??? getting grilled from watchdogs and soon to be made walk the plank. In ireland ???? Ah sure sorry about that there ted wont happen again


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    gurramok wrote: »
    The main banks did give out 100% mortgages, about 33% of mortgages in 2006 if i remember correctly were 100%(another poster may have the correct figure) but these were indeed based on the applicants actually having a job :)

    33%!? I would be shocked if that was accurate having worked in mortgages a few years ago. I would have said it was far lower than that, in fact 10% would surprise me. The 100% thing was a gimick (sp?) that they didn't utilise all that much - at least not that I saw. It was reserved generally for the likes of doctors who were in training and not on their full salary, basically cases where-by you were all but guaranteed a big increase in salary in the short-term that would cover the risk of lending 100%. Now that being said some of the smaller banks may well have used it a good deal more, but even still 33% to me seems outrageous.


Advertisement