Hung out to dry -Latest D Mc Williams offering

Blackjack

jmayo wrote: »

Clean out all directors of the stock exchange and bring in best practices from overseas with new enforcement watchdog.

why, what has the stock exchange and it's Directors done wrong?.

jmayo wrote: »

Bring in whistleblower legislation immediately.

that exists already, but you may have a specific area in mind where it may not.

capsubsidy.com

eamonnm79 wrote: »

Genuinely man I only had a 1 litre car with a top speed of 110 kmph. you only need to drive 60 miles an hour to do 50 miles in 50 mins. There is not one traffic light or junction the whole way.

Didn't your whole argument start with a dismissal of a someone saying it was mad to commute to Gorey to Baggot Street. Care to estimate how long that would take? You can pick a 4.2l car if you think it will make a difference.

Blackjack

In fairness, David McWilliams is someone who I'd have a lot of time and respect for, he's been right on a number of things and now his predictions are coming true.

However, his writing style is now getting a little boring, and he doesn't seem to be making predictions anymore, but tends to concentrate on the "I told you so" story these days, which is quite disappointing, it seems to suggest he has little more to offer except keeping his own stock up by reminding us what he told everyone a few years ago. It's a shame, I think he has a lot more to offer than this if he was bothered.

Regarding his predictions, most could see what was coming, most chose not to. Only one or 2 Analysts - some woman from Oppenheimer is one that springs to mind - actually predicted the Sub-Prime mess and the resultant impact it's had worldwide. I don't believe David was one of these but he predicted the Irish bubble bursting, and he was right.

He's becoming a bit like Michael Moore- tells the stories that people want to hear about but sensationalise it and exclude whatever positives may exist as it won't make for such an interesting piece (and would counter his point).

jmayo

Blackjack wrote: »

why, what has the stock exchange and it's Directors done wrong?.


that exists already, but you may have a specific area in mind where it may not.

Check out how many fines Goodbody stockbrokers/AIB were hit with over some of their dealings yet AFAIK one of their directors was director of stock exchange. It's a bit like getting the fox to guard the chickens isn't it ?

Also rememebr the Fyffes incident insider trading, remember how the market was manipulated by Quinns CFD with Anglo being taken up by some wealthy people, who happened to have the purchases funded by loans form Anglo itself.
In some countries that is a breach of company law, misleading the markets, propping up a companys share price by using the company's own funds.
Of course you will say it wasn't the stovck exchange it should have been director of corporate enforcement who should go after these people.
Oh wait didn't bertie refuse them resources :rolleyes:

Clean them out as well as the entire regulators office.
We need to show the world that our little cowboy operation is finally being cleaned out.

As for whistleblower legisaltion, as we found out during the week Mr McErlean has not worked since he was driven out of AIB.
Oh wait they did offer him an alternative to being head of Group Audit for AIB, assistant manager of a branch in Navan I think it was :rolleyes:

http://www.tribune.ie/business/article/2009/may/24/whistleblower-mcerlean-is-vindicated/

Now tell me all about the whistleblower legislation again ?

Blackjack

jmayo wrote: »

Check out how many fines Goodbody stockbrokers/AIB were hit with over some of their dealings yet AFAIK one of their directors was director of stock exchange. It's a bit like getting the fox to guard the chickens isn't it ?

Also rememebr the Fyffes incident insider trading, remember how the market was manipulated by Quinns CFD with Anglo being taken up by some wealthy people, who happened to have the purchases funded by loans form Anglo itself.
In some countries that is a breach of company law, misleading the markets, propping up a companys share price by using the company's own funds.
Of course you will say it wasn't the stovck exchange it should have been director of corporate enforcement who should go after these people.
Oh wait didn't bertie refuse them resources :rolleyes:

Clean them out as well as the entire regulators office.
We need to show the world that our little cowboy operation is finally being cleaned out.

As for whistleblower legisaltion, as we found out during the week Mr McErlean has not worked since he was driven out of AIB.
Oh wait they did offer him an alternative to being head of Group Audit for AIB, assistant manager of a branch in Navan I think it was :rolleyes:

http://www.tribune.ie/business/article/2009/may/24/whistleblower-mcerlean-is-vindicated/

Now tell me all about the whistleblower legislation again ?

Was the Director of Goodbody's a director of the Stock exchange at the time these share dealings happened?. As far as I recall, this was back in the 90's.

As regards whistleblower legislation - it exists, but you're right, it's up to the individual or the organisation. The Individual can go to the regulator, but then we've seen how ineffective they have been lately.

By the way, I was only asking you a question - no need to come back with all your rolleyes and attitude.

djpbarry

eamonnm79 wrote: »

So Gorey south Dublin is fine but gorey city centre if you have to travel in rush hour is not.

So now you’re agreeing with my statement that you earlier dismissed as rubbish?

eamonnm79 wrote: »

The amount of financial acumen and economic intelligence you expect normal joeblogs people to have is completely unfair and unrealistic. You are also forgetting that there are many people over 50 in this country who cant read and write.
The reason for having a state and laws is to protect us from ourselves.
The way free marketeers expect working class people to all have IQ's over 110 is completely unrealistic and disingenious.

So basically you’re saying that “working class” people over the age of 50 are too stupid to make decisions with their own money and the government should do it for them?

I am from what I suppose you would consider to be a working-class background. Neither of my parents was particularly well-educated (neither sat the leaving cert.) and both are now over the age of 50. However, when they bought their home (in their early 30’s) they were sufficiently “financially aware” to put themselves in a position whereby their mortgage was paid off before they hit the big “five-O”.

This condescending attitude toward “working-class people” seems to be very prevalent at the moment and it is incredibly insulting.

ardmacha

Plenty of working class people understand perfectly well that you should not borrow money that you have little prospect of paying back or only a prospect of paying it back if everything is as good as it possibly could be. Equally there are plenty of people with good middle class salaries whose credit cards are maxed out every month.

jmayo

Blackjack wrote: »

Was the Director of Goodbody's a director of the Stock exchange at the time these share dealings happened?. As far as I recall, this was back in the 90's.

As regards whistleblower legislation - it exists, but you're right, it's up to the individual or the organisation. The Individual can go to the regulator, but then we've seen how ineffective they have been lately.

By the way, I was only asking you a question - no need to come back with all your rolleyes and attitude.

Noit sure but from quick listen to Orieachatas committee hearing it sounded as if Goodbodys had guy in stock Exchange very soon if not during time they were doing some of their activies with Caribean companies.
I would love to see McErlean hit AIB with massive defamation of character lawsuit, but of course it would be us the taxpayers that would end up paying out. Sheehy would be slithering off into the sunset along with the rest of them.

I think someone had idea about boycotting Woods, the ex minister that sold out to christian brother abusers and rapists.
As a nation we should boycott them.
We can start with Neary, Fitzpatrick, Drumm, Fingers, Sheehy, Goggins, Ahern etc.
Treat them as pariahs. Our government aren't doing anything so it is up to the people.

Apologies I was not sure if you were a ffer in drag or a banker in drag so may have been abrasive, but the rolleyes were also just to highlight my disgust with our government and it's actions or lack of.

Dodser

Have to say I enjoy listening to him. He makes the state of our economy interesting. In the way Eamon Dunphy opinion makes football more interesting or George makes rugby more interesting. I don't always agree with all three of them. But they get the ordinary man involved in the debate.

AlekSmart

Took Part in a good long drag from Malin to Mizen at the weekend.....and it was TRULY scary that at each and every small Village,Town or City we passed through there was indeed a newly built estate or one in the course of construction.

What was more concerning was that in many of these communities there were several such "developments" many of which were obviously not being completed as the deleriction of the sites bore witness to.

I`m not a fan of D MacW by any means but his description as carried in that original article was as accurate as a Swiss Railway timetable.......Talk about the Elephant sitting in the corner !!!

eamonnm79

capsubsidy.com wrote: »

Didn't your whole argument start with a dismissal of a someone saying it was mad to commute to Gorey to Baggot Street. Care to estimate how long that would take? You can pick a 4.2l car if you think it will make a difference.

No that was someone else.

eamonnm79

Blackjack wrote: »

In fairness, David McWilliams is someone who I'd have a lot of time and respect for, he's been right on a number of things and now his predictions are coming true.

However, his writing style is now getting a little boring, and he doesn't seem to be making predictions anymore, but tends to concentrate on the "I told you so" story these days, which is quite disappointing, it seems to suggest he has little more to offer except keeping his own stock up by reminding us what he told everyone a few years ago. It's a shame, I think he has a lot more to offer than this if he was bothered.

Regarding his predictions, most could see what was coming, most chose not to. Only one or 2 Analysts - some woman from Oppenheimer is one that springs to mind - actually predicted the Sub-Prime mess and the resultant impact it's had worldwide. I don't believe David was one of these but he predicted the Irish bubble bursting, and he was right.

He's becoming a bit like Michael Moore- tells the stories that people want to hear about but sensationalise it and exclude whatever positives may exist as it won't make for such an interesting piece (and would counter his point).

Not true about him not making predictions anymore.
The main point of this article is that he is predicting that People who bought in the last 5 years in places like gorey navan etc. are going to be hit far worse than any other group in this downturn. And becauese these people are 25-35 they are the very people who we rely on to get our economy back moving. The comment on the Dr. from Gorey getting lots of stress cases is a warning of things Mcwilliams thinks will happen down the line. I for 1 agree.
If these people loose their jobs and throw in the towel like the developers have done we will be looking at Nama part 2.

eamonnm79

djpbarry wrote: »

So now you’re agreeing with my statement that you earlier dismissed as rubbish?
So basically you’re saying that “working class” people over the age of 50 are too stupid to make decisions with their own money and the government should do it for them?

I am from what I suppose you would consider to be a working-class background. Neither of my parents was particularly well-educated (neither sat the leaving cert.) and both are now over the age of 50. However, when they bought their home (in their early 30’s) they were sufficiently “financially aware” to put themselves in a position whereby their mortgage was paid off before they hit the big “five-O”.

This condescending attitude toward “working-class people” seems to be very prevalent at the moment and it is incredibly insulting.

Just because you and your family are financially savy does not mean that every one else is.

Public representatives are supposed to repreasent the public.
Its called democracy, its not every man for himself and if someone is weak, take advantage.

The real problem here is that you are saying people should all be able to do it for themselves. That we dont need democracy because every one is clever enough to make good descissions.
I dont believe for a second that you nieve enough to think this.

What you probobly actually are thinking but dont want to admit is that some people are smart enough, and some are not and that the ones that are not deserve their fate.

I dont want to be reduced to living in a survival of the fitest society. Its not civilised and anyway people who demand it usually are happy to allow government/european subsidies or tax breaks which just as anti free market.

djpbarry

eamonnm79 wrote: »

The main point of this article is that he is predicting that People who bought in the last 5 years in places like gorey navan etc. are going to be hit far worse than any other group in this downturn.

That’s not a prediction – that’s stating the bloody obvious.

eamonnm79 wrote: »

Just because you and your family are financially savy does not mean that every one else is.

Just because you think “working class” people are idiots who need state bodies to regulate their finances for them, doesn’t mean they are.

eamonnm79 wrote: »

The real problem here is that you are saying people should all be able to do it for themselves. That we dont need democracy because every one is clever enough to make good descissions.

You’re confusing the issue here and making things far more complicated than necessary. Let me put it like this; suppose you were about to buy a house and the government stepped in and said “no, sorry – we don’t think you’re ready for that sort of financial responsibility”. You’d think that would be ok, would you? You’d think to yourself “well, I’m just a simple working class type – the lads in Leinster House know what’s best for me”. Even if you were happy enough with this scenario, you think the rest of the country would be?

P. Breathnach

djpbarry wrote: »

... You’re confusing the issue here and making things far more complicated than necessary. Let me put it like this; suppose you were about to buy a house and the government stepped in and said “no, sorry – we don’t think you’re ready for that sort of financial responsibility”. You’d think that would be ok, would you? You’d think to yourself “well, I’m just a simple working class type – the lads in Leinster House know what’s best for me”. Even if you were happy enough with this scenario, you think the rest of the country would be?

Let me re-cast the scenario. Suppose that you are trying to buy a house, and the lending agencies said "No sorry, you don't satisfy the lending criteria, which limit the maximum loan to 85% of the value of the property and three times your annual income(s) from your employment or business". Would that be okay?

And would it be okay if those criteria flowed from guidelines set down by the Central Bank or Financial Regulator? And would it be okay if those guidelines were drawn up taking account of government policy?

Because it used to be a bit like that.

djpbarry

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Let me re-cast the scenario. Suppose that you are trying to buy a house, and the lending agencies said "No sorry, you don't satisfy the lending criteria, which limit the maximum loan to 85% of the value of the property and three times your annual income(s) from your employment or business". Would that be okay?

Fair question – the honest answer is I’m not sure.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And would it be okay if those criteria flowed from guidelines set down by the Central Bank or Financial Regulator? And would it be okay if those guidelines were drawn up taking account of government policy?

If that’s what people want then sure, fine with me. It’s unlikely to ever affect me so I’m not all that bothered one way or another. But the point I’m trying to make is that people are ultimately responsible for their own decisions.

Suppose the lending criteria you mention above are enforced and a whole load of people still wind up in serious financial difficulty for one reason or another – let’s say for argument’s sake that interest rates skyrocket. Do we blame the people who failed to manage their finances properly or do we say “Ah, it’s not their fault – they should never have been given the money in the first place. More stringent regulation of lending is required” ? How much regulation is required before we can start laying some blame at the feet of the financially irresponsible?

ionix5891

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Let me re-cast the scenario. Suppose that you are trying to buy a house, and the lending agencies said "No sorry, you don't satisfy the lending criteria, which limit the maximum loan to 85% of the value of the property and three times your annual income(s) from your employment or business". Would that be okay?

And would it be okay if those criteria flowed from guidelines set down by the Central Bank or Financial Regulator? And would it be okay if those guidelines were drawn up taking account of government policy?

Because it used to be a bit like that.

yep there should be strict controls on these mortgages

we know what happens when there isnt

dodgyme

djpbarry wrote: »

we can start laying some blame at the feet of the financially irresponsible?

who are you talking about here - the government? the bank? the greedy landlords? the mortgage holders? the 4% getting dole and and every allowance under the sun during the height of the boom? Was it not irresponsible to keep giving money to 4% who didnt want to work? etc etc. I know people who were financially irresponsible during the boom who had to sell the houses then split up etc etc ..you get the picture ..and now are being looked after in nice gaffs with rent allowance etc, no worse off for their troubles considering their stupidity. However they werent the brightest with money so this happens if its allowed to happen. It needs to be prevented by having regulation (in appropriate measure) and proper gov policy. There needs to be proper lending criteria's etc to stop these people getting mortgages etc so that johnny taxman doesnt have to take the hit when it all goes wrong. I would love to use the word hindsight but I wont since at the time anyone with a bit of cop knew that 100% mortgages was just a mechanism for a banker to get a bonus.

P. Breathnach

djpbarry wrote: »

If that’s what people want then sure, fine with me. It’s unlikely to ever affect me so I’m not all that bothered one way or another. But the point I’m trying to make is that people are ultimately responsible for their own decisions.

Broadly, I agree that people should accept responsibility for their decisions. But I recognize that people can be misled, either honestly or dishonestly, by those who want to do business with them, and can be sold products or services that are inappropriate for them. So I would look with favour on a regulatory regime that lessens the danger of people being sold a pup.

Suppose the lending criteria you mention above are enforced and a whole load of people still wind up in serious financial difficulty for one reason or another – let’s say for argument’s sake that interest rates skyrocket. Do we blame the people who failed to manage their finances properly or do we say “Ah, it’s not their fault – they should never have been given the money in the first place. More stringent regulation of lending is required” ? How much regulation is required before we can start laying some blame at the feet of the financially irresponsible?

The first part of the answer is that the criteria I sketched out would have made it far less likely that people would end up in financial difficulty because they would not have so greatly exceeded their capacity to repay. In addition, the existence of such criteria would mean that we would not have had the same property bubble (and consequent collapse).

I'm old enough to remember when such criteria applied, and yes, some people did get into financial difficulties -- some through being feckless or irresponsible; some through bad luck. They had to face the consequences, in some cases losing their homes. You cannot, and should not have to, protect everybody.

Blackjack

eamonnm79 wrote: »

Not true about him not making predictions anymore.
The main point of this article is that he is predicting that People who bought in the last 5 years in places like gorey navan etc. are going to be hit far worse than any other group in this downturn.

Thats no longer a prediction - particularly as RTE did a piece on this, particularly prices in Navan and other commuter towns some time last year.

djpbarry

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Broadly, I agree that people should accept responsibility for their decisions. But I recognize that people can be misled, either honestly or dishonestly, by those who want to do business with them, and can be sold products or services that are inappropriate for them. So I would look with favour on a regulatory regime that lessens the danger of people being sold a pup.

I’m not disagreeing with that, but we’re not talking about people being misled here. We’re talking about supposedly intelligent people (‘young professionals’ to paraphrase McWilliams) who should have known that they were borrowing way more than they could afford and, to be fair, most people I have spoken to who have lost money on property in recent years will readily admit that their decision to buy was a rather foolish one.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The first part of the answer is that the criteria I sketched out would have made it far less likely that people would end up in financial difficulty because they would not have so greatly exceeded their capacity to repay. In addition, the existence of such criteria would mean that we would not have had the same property bubble (and consequent collapse).

Again, fair enough. However, anyone who suggested any such measures 5 years ago would have been dismissed as a quack. People wanted as much money as banks were prepared to throw at them; it’s only in hindsight that tighter regulation seems like a good idea since those same people have gotten themselves into difficulty. Corrective action is a far easier sell than preventative action.

dodgyme

djpbarry wrote: »

. People wanted as much money as banks were prepared to throw at them;.

Yes some did, but you are missing the social context. I know another couple. Wife wants a new house, husband on serious cash. Wife cannot understands why husband wont buy the 800k house and sell the 400k house while her sister has a 600k house and her sisters husband doesnt earn as much as her husband etc etc. She keeps making the point that the mortgage will be approved and banks wouldnt give them the money unless they knew what they were doing (they are the professionals etc etc). Husband gives in eventually in 2006 and spends 800k for a house now worth probably 500k. He is not a happy man. Also his earnings have plumetted in the current market and he is under serious pressure. This is the social context

djpbarry wrote: »

. it’s only in hindsight that tighter regulation seems like a good idea since those same people have gotten themselves into difficulty. Corrective action is a far easier sell than preventative action.

I dont agree, its not only in hindsight that regulation seems a good idea!!!!. People said it at the time and were not listened too. And preventing something happening is far less work and cost then fixing it after it is gone wrong!???

P. Breathnach

djpbarry wrote: »

... However, anyone who suggested any such measures 5 years ago would have been dismissed as a quack...

I was!

djpbarry

dodgyme wrote: »

Husband gives in eventually in 2006 and spends 800k for a house now worth probably 500k. He is not a happy man.

Because he went against his better judgement?

dodgyme wrote: »

I dont agree, its not only in hindsight that regulation seems a good idea!!!!. People said it at the time and were not listened too.

My point exactly.

Small Change

dodgyme wrote: »

Husband gives in eventually in 2006 and spends 800k for a house now worth probably 500k. He is not a happy man.

Finally we have got to the root of the problem!
It's not the fault of the developers/banks/government at all, it's all down to the women!!!!

ionix5891

Small Change wrote: »

Finally we have got to the root of the problem!
It's not the fault of the developers/banks/government at all, it's all down to the women!!!!

oh this thread is gonna end in tears now

dodgyme

djpbarry wrote: »

Because he went against his better judgement?
My point exactly.

its very hard to swim against the tide. ! The government should not have allowed banks to be lending to people who couldnt pay back the cash and didnt care because they were getting stamp duty from it. Bertie told people when the cards were already crashing down that they should go off and commit suicide the way things were being painted - they were being painted correctly. Hardly an ideal environment for Joe Soap to make "informed" decisions.

There are always going to be silly people who make silly mistakes. The CT got smart people to make silly mistakes because they were playing on a pitch that was lobsided.

jimmmy

dodgyme wrote: »

its very hard to swim against the tide. ! The government should not have allowed banks to be lending to people who couldnt pay back the cash and didnt care because they were getting stamp duty from it. Bertie told people when the cards were already crashing down that they should go off and commit suicide the way things were being painted - they were being painted correctly. Hardly an ideal environment for Joe Soap to make "informed" decisions.

True enough. The central bank and regulator have a lot to answer for as well, and heads should roll there, instead of the people there being rewarded with wages + pensions among the highest in the world. The govt should not have put fuel on the fire and encouraged people to invest in property through section 23 , section 50 etc....and they messed up the market further by extending the deadlines. The people who caused the mess continue to get big pay + pensions - unlike many of the people who borrowed.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

True enough. The central bank and regulator have a lot to answer for as well, and heads should roll there, instead of the people there being rewarded with wages + pensions among the highest in the world. The govt should not have put fuel on the fire and encouraged people to invest in property through section 23 , section 50 etc....and they messed up the market further by extending the deadlines. The people who caused the mess continue to get big pay + pensions - unlike many of the people who borrowed.

:rolleyes:

Is there no thread you wont try to squeeze this waffle into jimmmy?

eamonnm79

djpbarry wrote: »

.
You’re confusing the issue here and making things far more complicated than necessary. Let me put it like this; suppose you were about to buy a house and the government stepped in and said “no, sorry – we don’t think you’re ready for that sort of financial responsibility”. You’d think that would be ok, would you? You’d think to yourself “well, I’m just a simple working class type – the lads in Leinster House know what’s best for me”. Even if you were happy enough with this scenario, you think the rest of the country would be?

I think that the government should implement legistlation to cap mortgage lending at 3 times salary for an individual and 5 times for a couple were both are working. People should also have to save 10% min.

That was the way it was in Ireland and if that legistlation had have been there we would not have had the massive credit bubble.
But thanks for helping me prove my point that people need to be protected from themselves sometimes.
BTW I would also bring in much more gambling legistlation.
More of a nanny state financially I guess but its a price i would be willling to pay.