The "Golden Circle" - should they be named?

Singer73

The govt (the People) is a sharehoder in the bank. Ahareholders cannot have access to information about who gets what loans from the bank. This is basic banking PLC 101. The govt as the shareholder cannot have access to these names, or at least cannot be seen to be the ones who have access.
Those who took the loans did not act fraudulently. It's the bank who appear to have acted fraudulently. The 10 may even have been unwilling participants in this scheme.
I'm all for tabloid headlines, but let's not have the media running the country...

P. Breathnach

Clare_Guy wrote: »

How come they were able to name Sean Fitzpatrick are a recipient of dubious loans (which is subject to an investigation now) and yet they can't name these 10 individuals on the pretence that it may affect future investigations?

Loans to directors are required to be disclosed. That requirement is there to ensure that directors do not abuse their position to the detriment of the shareholders whose interest they are supposed to represent.

There is a strong case to be made that the parking of the loan was an effort to conceal something that should have been disclosed, and so that it is fair and appropriate to bring it before the public.

SeanW

Should these 10 clowns be named? Absolutely.

The Exchequer should have done a Lehman Brothers on Anglo. Had it been excluded from the Bank Guarantee and let collapse, the malinvestment would have been cleared out of the system, the toxic assets would have been resold under insolvency procedures and revalued correctly, all that the company had owned would be redistributed to other compaines who had a better idea what to do with them, and the incompetent and semi-fraudulent activity would have been punished by normal market forces, which is exactly what happened with Lehman.

Ideally Anglo should have been let fall on its own sword as should NIB and IL&P if they (having been also involved in simmering Anglos books) should likewise fail if they engaged in other dodgy practices.

But instead of letting it fall by the wayside, now the whole country partly owns this toxic cesspool, and it's going to hang around all our necks for years causing pain, we have a right to know the full extent of what was going on.

Zynks

Singer73 wrote: »

The govt (the People) is a sharehoder in the bank. Ahareholders cannot have access to information about who gets what loans from the bank. This is basic banking PLC 101. The govt as the shareholder cannot have access to these names, or at least cannot be seen to be the ones who have access.
Those who took the loans did not act fraudulently. It's the bank who appear to have acted fraudulently. The 10 may even have been unwilling participants in this scheme.
I'm all for tabloid headlines, but let's not have the media running the country...

So let's not ask who are the 10 who took the loans. Let's ask who are the 10 who bought shares (these are not customers) and eventually lost them because they were taken over by a lender who called the guarantee in.

Is the register of shareholders also confidential?

Dannyboy83

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Loans to directors are required to be disclosed. That requirement is there to ensure that directors do not abuse their position to the detriment of the shareholders whose interest they are supposed to represent.

There is a strong case to be made that the parking of the loan was an effort to conceal something that should have been disclosed, and so that it is fair and appropriate to bring it before the public.

Yes, but all transactions are also to be declared to the stock market.
The actions of the Golden 10 is insider trading.
It was done to prevent a slump in share prices when the 10% is released onto the market.

I think Sean FitzPatrick's loans were disclosed because *technically* they're not illegal. I don't believe he can be prosecuted in anyway, so why not name and shame?

Its probably good that the Golden 10 have not been named, it was you yourself who made the point about pre-judicial comment, allegations and the inability to have a fair trial.

Remember, we couldn't prosecute Charles Haughey, Father of Irish Corruption, due to the very same thing.
Lets not have the same mistake again.

On the other hand, this is little ol'Ireland where everyone is a director on everyone elses board, so if we're not going to prosecute them, lets hope they will be named and shamed.

DublinWriter

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What crime do you think they have committed?

Insider trading.

SkepticOne

I think what they may have committed allegedly is market manipulation, like insider dealing, a form of market abuse.

See Market Abuse (Directive 2003/6/EC) Regulations 2005

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What crime do you think they have committed?

Maybe I'm just a bit thick, and anger about this whole mess is making me ignorant (I hope it isn't :P) -

However, how the hell can these lads be having huge debts written off so easily? Surely there's something highly dodgy happening there. I highly doubt that they've all gone bankrupt and are totally unable to pay off a cent. If it was you or me refusing to pay off a loan to a bank, and they'd be using every facet of the law to get that money back - it wouldn't be "Legal" then.. So why is it different for these people then?

Seriously can someone shed some light as to whether this is just a big "Fúck you" to every single tax payer in this country who are now bailing these fools out, or is there actually some highly illegal activity going on....

I take it back actually, we're the fools.

asdasd

However, how the hell can these lads having huge debts written off so easily?

I agree but that is not necessarily insider trading. What may be insider trading is the bank getting people it has loaned to, to buy it's own shares. It is, however, legal to buy back shares, so I am not sure about that one. The people getting the loan were not technically insiders - unlike FitzPatrick.

If the loans were agreed on the basis that they would be written off if the stocks collapsed ( and that is hardly over-speculative) then the recipients are liable for tax on the loan since it is effectively income. However that agreement may not be in writing. If it was in writing then there could be some cases of manipulation involved since the banks were giving reisk-free loans to prop up it's own shareprice, and manipulate the market.

But i am not sure of legality. I am sure of the lack of ethics.

What i think we should do is, as shareholders, talk to the directors ( i.e. the minister) and ask him to reinstate the loans. We are the owners, now, and we feel that the loans should not have been written off, nor should there have been any agreement to write them off. So if the new directors don't reverse that decision we will replace the directors.

ateam

David Murphy has just said the Golden Circle are not household names (on RTE radio). He has seen the list. They are connected to the building trade though.

deadhead13

ateam wrote: »

David Murphy has just said the Golden Circle are not household names (on RTE radio). He has seen the list. They are connected to the building trade though.

I wonder how many of them have been to ff's infamous galway races tent.

quickg

It seems the air industry magnate Ulick McEvaddy is finally showing his true colours. His unreserved support for the likes of Sean Fitzpatrick is disappointing to say the least.
It seems the rarified athmosphere of the cabin of a private jet plays havoc with ethics and scruples. Not too long ago, these self made millionaires would have attracted a lot of adulation and praise, but not anymore. When this smokescreen of corruption, insider dealing, golden circle has lifted, people will see the murkey underworld of sharp practice, dodgy dealing rather than smart business acumen, intelligence and ability.
The cat is well and truly out of the bag with regard to these people.

FrankGrimes

asdasd wrote: »

I agree but that is not necessarily insider trading. What may be insider trading is the bank getting people it has loaned to, to buy it's own shares. It is, however, legal to buy back shares, so I am not sure about that one. The people getting the loan were not technically insiders - unlike FitzPatrick.

I think the above is an opinion as opposed to fact and we're in the realms of speculation until we hear definitive guidance on the legality or otherwise of these transactions.

amen

I thought all share holders had to be listed on the shareholders register?

So as a taxpayer could I ask to see the register and see who purchase a large amount of shares around this time?

I also thought the stock exchange had to be informed if a large number of shares was purchased by an individual?

FrankGrimes

ateam wrote: »

David Murphy has just said the Golden Circle are not household names (on RTE radio). He has seen the list. They are connected to the building trade though.

Who is David Murphy and how did he get to see the list? Very interesting stuff, won't be at all surprised if investigative reporters manage to uncover some interesting political links of those individuals....though I guess Murphy didn't actually give the names?

asdasd

I think the above is an opinion as opposed to fact

I am actually certain about all of it, except the part I used the word "may"; which i used judiciously.

dvpower

amen wrote: »

I thought all share holders had to be listed on the shareholders register?

So as a taxpayer could I ask to see the register and see who purchase a large amount of shares around this time?

I also thought the stock exchange had to be informed if a large number of shares was purchased by an individual?

In the UK at least, I think there is legislation allowing for sharholders to have access to the shareholders register. I'm not sure what the details are, I think there is a 'proper purpose' clause, or if something similar exists here. Maybe some 'law-talking guys' out there can clarify?

A possible consideration is that Anglo is no longer a PLC, so maybe its a mute point.

Locamon

I like many here think the list of 10 must be published for the public good.

This is not a simple case of loans to customers, each took a stake in the bank and as investors surely their names and the nature of the deal should have been disclosed to the stock market at the time. The fact it wasn't was surely an unfair advantage to the individuals involved and not in the interest of ordinary shareholders who knew nothing of the deal. If as is widely speculated these investors are connected to FF then an investigation has to be carried out as to what if any involvement the governing party had in this deal and how it has come to pass that these loans are now written off.

At the end of the day all of the Irish banks have been at the very least poorly run and we the taxpayers, who are now bailing them out, can surely expect to see a removal of the decision makers who got them into this situation -without golden handshakes and perks to ease their exit. The fact a senior banker could appear on national television and poor mouth his drop in income by a million euro because he made bad decisions when thousands are losing their jobs is disheartening to say the least.

P. Breathnach

amen wrote: »

I thought all share holders had to be listed on the shareholders register?

Correct.

So as a taxpayer could I ask to see the register and see who purchase a large amount of shares around this time?

You don't even have to be a taxpayer to see it. Anybody can inspect the share register of a public limited company on payment of a nominal fee. That is because everybody is a potential purchaser of shares. But it's unlikely to help, for two reasons:
1. Many investors conceal their interest (legally) by having the shares held by nominee shareholders. So the holdings might be listed in names like "XY Nominee Holdings".
2. The real issue is identifying those shareholders who were given loans to help them buy the shares, and that won't be shown.

I also thought the stock exchange had to be informed if a large number of shares was purchased by an individual?

Yes. But I think that point is 3% of the shares, and the members of the group are understood to have acquired 1% each.

Dannyboy83

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Correct.



You don't even have to be a taxpayer to see it. Anybody can inspect the share register of a public limited company on payment of a nominal fee. That is because everybody is a potential purchaser of shares. But it's unlikely to help, for two reasons:
1. Many investors conceal their interest (legally) by having the shares held by nominee shareholders. So the holdings might be listed in names like "XY Nominee Holdings".
2. The real issue is identifying those shareholders who were given loans to help them buy the shares, and that won't be shown.



Yes. But I think that point is 3% of the shares, and the members of the group are understood to have acquired 1% each.

Excellent post.

Under American law, I believe ALL transactions have to be declared to the market, anything else is Insider Trading.

Given the strategy employed here, it will probably be shown that not all transactions need to be declared on the Irish stock market.

We lose again.

ateam

FrankGrimes wrote: »

Who is David Murphy and how did he get to see the list? Very interesting stuff, won't be at all surprised if investigative reporters manage to uncover some interesting political links of those individuals....though I guess Murphy didn't actually give the names?

RTE's business correspondent.

Nodin

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Given the strategy employed here, it will probably be shown that not all transactions need to be declared on the Irish stock market.

Apparently not if they buy a certain type of share.....
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/just-three-letters--cfd--at-centre-of-shares-controversy-1644972.html

Dannyboy83

Nodin wrote: »

Apparently not if they buy a certain type of share.....
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/just-three-letters--cfd--at-centre-of-shares-controversy-1644972.html

Quinn would still have to pay 20% income tax on the total gross (or 42% in his case) when the shares are sold.
Do we know if he did that?

I wouldn't be surprised if Quinn had started a company and awarded "options" to people (who reciprocated with cash gifts).
Maybe somebody should study his tax returns?


No expert here, although I've dabbled in the stock market, but the CFD system looks like a variation on shorting.
i.e. putting down E75m for a 1.5billion investment

Mr.Micro

This bit I like, and how convenient, despite the fact that its taxpayers money that bought the debts here.

The Government has said the rules of banking confidentiality preclude it from asking for the names of customers.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0220/anglo1.html

Darragh29

Breaking news:

It turns out that the Anglo loan given to the "Golden Circle", was not in fact 300,000,000 Euro but actually 451,000,000 Euro!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0220/breaking14.htm

Mr.Micro

Darragh29 wrote: »

Breaking news:

It turns out that the Anglo loan given to the "Golden Circle", was not in fact 300,000,000 Euro but actually 451,000,000 Euro!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0220/breaking14.htm

In any other normal country this would be considered insider dealing but when has Ireland been a normal country. Many of us perhaps thought that the bad old days of sleaze were behind us, but no, the corruption gene appears to be endemic in our society?

Mr.Micro

Mr.Micro wrote: »

In any other normal country this would be considered insider dealing but when has Ireland been a normal country. Many of us perhaps thought that the bad old days of sleaze were behind us, but no, the corruption gene appears to be endemic in our society?

It's not like these people are a new generation of corrupt little gits. They just managed to stay under the radar until now.

Liam Byrne

Here's a question.....did each of those ten shareholders know about the other 9 ?

If so, letting the newest shareholder (the Government / all of us) know wouldn't be breaking any "confidentiality" clause.

I think FF are stalling, because they're railing against making something "public", whereas the legal issue should be "should fellow shareholders know about dodgy deals".

Mind you, considering the hames FF made of their Aer Lingus shareholding when they fecked off to Belfast, I wouldn't be surprised if they sat on their arses and wasted even more of OUR money on that septic and corrupt ****hole that is called Anglo Irish.

turly

Four Hundred and Fifty One Million Euro!!!!!

Jaysus. I've said it elsewhere, but the term "Golden Circle" is far too ennobling for the likes of them. A "Golden Shower" is much more apt.

And you know what the crying shame is? Fianna Fail will still get in next time. Look at those knuckle-dragging tards nice people in North Tipperary who keep voting in Lowry. Corruption is accepted in this country, or worse, "cute hoor"-ism.

hughs

See article in today's paper

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0221/1224241586025.html