Standing up for Teachers.

woodseb

kippy wrote: »

Dividends are based on profits in general, not share price, the two dont HAVE to be directly linked.

If people are using shares as a form of saving, they need their heads examined.

both dividends and share price are based on profits - current, past and future

we all use shares as a form of savings in our pensions - the trick is to diversify your savings

kippy

woodseb wrote: »

both dividends and share price are based on profits - current, past and future

we all use shares as a form of savings in our pensions - the trick is to diversify your savings

Share price is NOT linked to profits. It is linked to demand.
Remember the dot com era?

Not all of us use shares in our pensions.........

nice_guy80

in fact the Irish government just pay public pensions straight out of day to day cash.

which seems to be a much more efficient way to funding them at the moment seeing as the private sector pensions have been grossly mismanaged by the investment companies.
where has all that money gone?

kangaroo

nice_guy80 wrote: »

in fact the Irish government just pay public pensions straight out of day to day cash.

which seems to be a much more efficient way to funding them at the moment seeing as the private sector pensions have been grossly mismanaged by the investment companies.
where has all that money gone?

That may be the case with current pension payments but we also have the billions in the pension reserve fund which is being invested.

OMD

sheehyskeff wrote: »

The OECD report refers purely to contact teaching time. It is appallingly badly informed to assume that any teacher's workload is limited to contact time alone. Your "per hour" figure is simply ridiculous as it demonstrates an almost wilful misunderstanding of what teaching actually entails.

By all means disagree with salary levels such as they are - but if you are going to talk about the profession that is teaching at least demonstrate some understanding of the contact and non-contact elements of the job.

I referred to per hour rates because #15 (a teacher)said not to do so was ridiculous. Are you saying Irish teachers have extra work beyond contact teaching time but the rest of the world doesn't? Sounds unlikely. Can you back it up?

Irish teachers are paid about 25% above OECD average per "contact teaching" hour. They are the fifth highest paid in the world. They are paid more than University graduates in Ireland. On what basis are you now saying they are not overpaid.

kippy

OMD wrote: »

I referred to per hour rates because #15 (a teacher)said not to do so was ridiculous. Are you saying Irish teachers have extra work beyond contact teaching time but the rest of the world doesn't? Sounds unlikely. Can you back it up?

Irish teachers are paid about 25% above OECD average per "contact teaching" hour. They are the fifth highest paid in the world. They are paid more than University graduates in Ireland. On what basis are you now saying they are not overpaid.

1. National school Teachers are university graduates who have done 1 further year "work placement" to get their H dip. So they would probably have more "learning time" than most university graduates.
2. Being a university graduate does not entitle you to a higher wage, career choice is critical in determining you wage.
3. The main issues I have with teachers and the public service in general is not their pay per se. It is the lack of accountability, the lack of any performance measurements (and being paid in line with that) and the complete overload of bureaucracy involved in the jobs. Teachers should teach, they spend more time nowadays filling in paperwork and dealing with over/under protective parents than actually teaching something that the kids will need.


Those are my experiences anyway and again, I ask anyone who believes teaching to be an extremely brilliant job, why they hell aren't they in it?

doc_17

Maybe teachers are the 5th highest paid in the world. Maybe they aren't but the OECD comparison should be viewed in light of the fact that nearly everything is more expensive in Ireland, car prices (along with petrol, tax, insurance, servicing) health insurance, doctor and dental fees, food, mortgages, education costs, etc etc etc. Until those issues are addressed we will continue to have problems in this country

OMD

doc_17 wrote: »

Maybe teachers are the 5th highest paid in the world. Maybe they aren't but the OECD comparison should be viewed in light of the fact that nearly everything is more expensive in Ireland, car prices (along with petrol, tax, insurance, servicing) health insurance, doctor and dental fees, food, mortgages, education costs, etc etc etc. Until those issues are addressed we will continue to have problems in this country

Teachers just refuse to accept they are highly paid and are one of the groups to benefit hugely from the celtic tiger. This is even when you ignore the huge additional benefits, pension, sick pay, holidays etc. When shown how much they are paid they just go around in circles
1. Teachers are paid way more than other workers in Ireland
Answer: You cannot compare teachers to other workers. Teachers have degrees.

2 You show teachers earn way more than other workers in Ireland with degrees.
Answer: You cannot compare teachers to others with degrees, only other teachers

3. You show Irish teachers are paid way more than teachers in almost every country in the world.
Answer: It is because teachers work more

4. You show teachers in Ireland are paid way more (30% more) per hour worked than teachers in OECD or EU
Answer. That's because it is Ireland and everyone needs to earn more due to high prices.

Which brings us back to 1 again.

Also remember that in last 10 years (at least) teachers have received pay rises way in excess of inflation.
Also in these figures I have supplied I have not included the multitude of allowances you can get as a teacher thus increasing salaries even more.
I have not taken into account the generous tax system in Ireland (which I know is available to all workers) which would make take home pay in Ireland way higher than teachers in other countries and easily discounts the dubious "Ireland is expensive" argument

Many teachers have commented about how uninformed people are about teachers pay. Well consider yourselves informed.

kangaroo

kippy wrote: »

1. National school Teachers are university graduates who have done 1 further year "work placement" to get their H dip.

Presume you mean secondary teachers.
You also don't start at the bottom rung of the ladder (salary scale) for this (degree plus H.Dip) (and get a lot more if you one of those academic geniuses who gets an honours degree :rolleyes:) . You also get extra money for doing the H.Dip.

AFAIK, you can be a primary school teacher (aka national school teacher) after a 3 year degree.

MysticalRain

doc_17 wrote: »

Maybe teachers are the 5th highest paid in the world. Maybe they aren't but the OECD comparison should be viewed in light of the fact that nearly everything is more expensive in Ireland, car prices (along with petrol, tax, insurance, servicing) health insurance, doctor and dental fees, food, mortgages, education costs, etc etc etc. Until those issues are addressed we will continue to have problems in this country

It's already being addressed. Inflation has dropped significantly in the last year or so. Teachers wages far outpaced inflation in the boom years and high wages are a key factor in driving inflation in the first place. Countries like Finland and Norway are just as expensive as Ireland, if not more so. Yet somehow teachers over there survive on less wages. I would love to know how teachers think the rest of us on this little island cope when dealing with inflation. People in the private sector to pay the same prices for goods and services on far less wages. Yet somehow they cope with it.

sheehyskeff

OMD wrote: »

I referred to per hour rates because #15 (a teacher)said not to do so was ridiculous. Are you saying Irish teachers have extra work beyond contact teaching time but the rest of the world doesn't? Sounds unlikely. Can you back it up?

Where did I say that? This is what I am saying: Your assumption that teachers are paid on a per hour basis is highly inaccurate and in no way applicable to the profession. A primary teacher in Ireland is paid on a fortnightly basis for a period of 14 days. There is no specific mention of hourly rates as they are irrelevant in our case. The teaching day is made up of contact teaching time and non-contact teaching time, the former can be measured, the latter cannot. In short - you need to think about how you are wording your arguments/points - in this case you made a sweeping statement which was, I'm sorry to say, poorly informed. In your defence however, the OECD report is what led you to that conclusion - I believe it would be more accurate to change the term "hours worked" to "contact teaching hours".

Irish teachers are paid about 25% above OECD average per "contact teaching" hour. They are the fifth highest paid in the world. They are paid more than University graduates in Ireland. On what basis are you now saying they are not overpaid

Where did I say that? My point refers to your own poor understanding of what a teacher's workday is made up of and this is the point which I'd be delighted to work through with you.

kippy

kangaroo wrote: »

Presume you mean secondary teachers.
You also don't start at the bottom rung of the ladder (salary scale) for this (degree plus H.Dip) (and get a lot more if you one of those academic geniuses who gets an honours degree :rolleyes:) . You also get extra money for doing the H.Dip.

AFAIK, you can be a primary school teacher (aka national school teacher) after a 3 year degree.

Sorry, slightly confused.
As a primary school teacher you need to get a teaching diploma (which is assessed usually in your first year) to probated. This is on top of your 3 (or 4 in some cases) year degree.
To be a secondary teacher, yes, you need a H Dip, which is extra to your primary degree.

I realise there is extra money for all of these degrees, diplomas and various other qualifications but that is standard across the public service (and MAY be standard across other public services across the world, the amount may differ however)

It is one career that I know of where the "quality" and level of your qualifications DIRECTLY impacts on your pay. (Primary School teaching) So why wouldnt those in the career take advantage of that?

kangaroo

kippy wrote: »

Probably mid 90's all right.

I dont have any doubt to be honest.

Do you not think that banks will make profits and share prices will begin to rise again in the next 4-5 years, mainly as a result of NAMA?

Provided these guys didn't take out a loan for said shares, I dont think you can call it a loss unless they HAVE to sell the shares........they still have an asset that has potential to bring in an annual dividend.

I was editing my post when you sent this.

I have thought about it and am sure that the dividend will be less than when the bank shares were 10+ times the value:

As I said:
You seem to have been saying in this thread dividends were very good in banks. If a bank gave a 5% dividend when their shares were at €15.00, it would not have been seen as excessive. That's 75c. I can't see AIB giving dividends of 75c on its shares that are at €1.50 (approx.).

So people are getting a smaller dividend.
And if they try to sell their shares any time soon, they will make a major loss.

kippy wrote: »

I wont be buying anything until I am sure that the state wont take over the remaining banks, which I think they should have done ages ago. Then the shareholders get punished.

The shareholders have got punished.

There are all sorts of markets out there. There is probably a market where one can bet that the AIB shares will be 15.00 in the next few years. I think the probability of this would be low so you would get good odds.

sheehyskeff

A question that often occurs to me as I read these type of threads is why you all believe teachers should not be well paid?

kippy

kangaroo wrote: »

I was editing my post when you sent this.

I have thought about it and am sure that the dividend will be less than when the bank shares were 10+ times the value:

As I said:
You seem to have been saying in this thread dividends were very good in banks. If a bank gave a 5% dividend when their shares were at €15.00, it would not have been seen as excessive. That's 75c. I can't see AIB giving dividends of 75c on its shares that are at €1.50 (approx.).

So people are getting a smaller dividend.
And if they try to sell their shares any time soon, they will make a major loss.

The shareholders have got punished.

There are all sorts of markets out there. There is probably a market where one can bet that the AIB shares will be 15.00 in the next few years. I think the probability of this would be low so you would get good odds.

Okay, Listen, I am going to unashamedly "borrow" from this thread:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055799206&page=2

Banks sold their shares to people as relatively safe investments.
Those people got dividends.
The banks mismanaged their loans and those people now lose their investment.

It's cruel, but it's capitalism.

So anyone whinging about "but I lost my money" can feck off, in my book; not in general terms, but in terms of me paying for them. I didn't see any of THEIR dividends along the way over the last ten years.

So the fact that - courtesy of US, THE TAXPAYERS - they're losing LESS than they otherwise would should be treated with some level of gratitude; but no, they're still paying their head guys half-a-million quid each, still walloping said-same taxpayer in a recession, and refuse to operate normally - all despite the fact that we - courtesy of FF - have saved their asses.

Choice A : No government intervention, and you lose everything (courtesy of the decisions of the bank that you invested in - take it up with them).

Choice B : We'll bail you out, but things change - on OUR terms

It shouldn't have been too difficult to impose those terms.

But no, FF decided to follow the Carlsberg ad and give them option "C" - the worst of both worlds for everyone else.

And also have a read of this:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0115/1224262378508.html


Why are you asking me to invest in bank shares?
I've already said I don't intend doing so........
Have you gotten "burned" yourself or something?

kangaroo

kippy wrote: »

It is one career that I know of where the "quality" and level of your qualifications DIRECTLY impacts on your pay. (Primary School teaching) So why wouldnt those in the career take advantage of that?

Personally, I agree it is probably good to give people more, with more qualifications.

However, giving €5,177 (pre-budget)/€4,918 (post-budget) for an honours degree for primary and secondary teaching is quite a lot. You don't need to be particularly bright to have to get an honours degree in an Arts subject (say) at the moment (maybe 40 years ago the standards were a little higher).

So separating that allowance from pay is a little artificial.

And then I thought I'd point out that most secondary teachers anyway don't start on the bottom rung of the pay scale as some people may not know this - I can't see the rules now but, IIRC, it could be the third rung in some cases.

Personally I was not interested in teachers' pay until recent times. The country pre-budget needed to make cuts in public sector pay. Hard to get around making cuts in the education budget given the size of it. And the vast bulk of the education budget is salaries. With deflation in the economy, it seemed a reasonable time to make cuts.

kangaroo

kippy wrote: »

Why are you asking me to invest in bank shares?

To back up your contention that they are a sure bet to rise to the previous levels. If they were such a sure bet, most people would do it. The fact is, they are not such a sure bet to rise to those levels.

I'm challenging you partly because you are being inaccurate when you are saying that share-holders haven't taken a hit/been punished.

This is separate from what the government should do. Maybe the government shouldn't bail out the banks. But people should be informed that shareholders have taken a hit even if the banks are bailed out.

sheehyskeff

kangaroo wrote: »

Personally, I agree it is probably good to give people more, with more qualifications.

However, giving €5,177 (pre-budget)/€4,918 (post-budget) for an honours degree for primary and secondary teaching is quite a lot. You don't need to be particularly bright to have to get an honours degree in an Arts subject (say) at the moment (maybe 40 years ago the standards were a little higher).

How can you be sure that a Primary Teacher's allowance for an Honours Degree is too high unless you actually have first hand experience of how they need to use that degree in their line of work?

kangaroo

sheehyskeff wrote: »

How can you be sure that a Primary Teacher's allowance for an Honours Degree is too high unless you actually have first hand experience of how they need to use that degree in their line of work?

Not sure your point. My point is that an honours degree should be considered more like the norm.

kippy

kangaroo wrote: »

To back up your contention that they are a sure bet to rise to the previous levels. If they were such a sure bet, most people would do it. The fact is, they are not such a sure bet to rise to those levels.

I'm challenging you partly because you are being inaccurate when you are saying that share-holders haven't taken a major hit.

This is separate from what the government should do. Maybe the government shouldn't bail out the banks.

I never once said they would rise to previous levels.........
They will rise and dividends will be paid on them again - providing the government dont nationalise the banks.

Shareholders havent taken a major it, I stand by that.
They still have their shares and those shares are an asset. They took the profits and dividends in the good times and get bailed out in the bad times so that they can hold onto these shares. Do you not at least agree somewhat with that?
The rise in shares will come about by the Irish taxpayers "investment vehicle" NAMA.

Its like saying I bought a house, in the boom times for 300K cash, no mortgage.
I intend to hold onto this house until I die, gaining a rental income for the next 30 years which may fluctuate.
No one has taken my house off me and I dont intend to sell anything soon, even thought the houses value now is only 100K, were I too sell.
I havent "Lost" that 200K until I try releasing the equity in the house, as far as I can tell........
The issue arrises if I have a mortgage for the house and as I said before I HAVE NO sympathy for those who took out loans to gamble on the stock market.

kangaroo

kippy wrote: »

Shareholders havent taken a major it, I stand by that.
They still have their shares and those shares are an asset. They took the profits and dividends in the good times and get bailed out in the bad times so that they can hold onto these shares. Do you not at least agree somewhat with that?
The rise in shares will come about by the Irish taxpayers "investment vehicle" NAMA.

I agree with the fact that without the bank guarantee, the shares could well drop to nothing.

But it was possibly factored into the value of the shares when they were sold that governments might protect them - the Irish banks weren't a high tech companies and so if was probably felt in the market that a government might save them.

People can argue that the government shouldn't bail them out if they like.

I am arguing with the numbers. Numerically, people who bought bank shares will take a not-insignificant hit. The dividend on a share valued at €1.50 won't be the same as when it was €15/16/17/18. It may well be the case that the people deserve it. I'm just challenging the numbers.

sheehyskeff

kangaroo wrote: »

Not sure your point. My point is that an honours degree should be considered more like the norm.

For sure it should. But I don't agree that it's a piece of cake to actually get an Honours Prim Ed qualification. In addition most schools now look for academic transcripts these days and grads with 1st Hons TP are the preferred choice. Unfortunately for a lot of students coming out - Principals are now in a position to pick and choose.

kippy

kangaroo wrote: »

Personally, I agree it is probably good to give people more, with more qualifications.

However, giving €5,177 (pre-budget)/€4,918 (post-budget) for an honours degree for primary and secondary teaching is quite a lot. You don't need to be particularly bright to have to get an honours degree in an Arts subject (say) at the moment (maybe 40 years ago the standards were a little higher).

So separating that allowance from pay is a little artificial.

And then I thought I'd point out that most secondary teachers anyway don't start on the bottom rung of the pay scale as some people may not know this - I can't see the rules now but, IIRC, it could be the third rung in some cases.

Personally I was not interested in teachers' pay until recent times. The country pre-budget needed to make cuts in public sector pay. Hard to get around making cuts in the education budget given the size of it. And the vast bulk of the education budget is salaries. With deflation in the economy, it seemed a reasonable time to make cuts.

To be honest, I would disagree giving someone more money JUST because they have better/more qualifications. Higher pay should be as a result of job performance. Maybe a bit hard to quantify in teaching.

Indeed, it may have been a reasonable time.

I personally amnt for striking and I agree wholy with the cuts those far (having lost about 12-15% of my salary in public service related cuts so far.

I dont agree however with a lot more of what has been done and what has gone on.
I dont personally think FF and their goonies should still be in charge, I dont agree that certain high powered bankers havent at least been arrested for what has happened.
I dont agree with the lack of stimulus provided to create private sector jobs. I believe we have far too many politicians in the country, I believe we spend too much on unneeded or inefficient services. Oil, Interest rates, are costs outside of our control that are going to go up in the near future, costs which the government do control, Electricity, telecoms to an extent, car tax, VAT, have stayed static, excise on fuel has gone up, and on drink down - theres some thing wrong there, too many publicans in the dail. That clown bertie writing books and speaking on tv about the success and his lack of having a bank account......

And to be honest that mini rant is what pisses me off more than anything and all the while we're at eachothers throats over this and that when we should be at the throats of those really responsible. Change how we are run as a country, bring some change, maybe slowly but surely.
I cant see that happening at the moment though, the unions will call for strikes and while its a very blunt instrument and a very selfish act, it MAY at least bring about the downfall of the current government.

kippy

kangaroo wrote: »

I agree with the fact that without the bank guarantee, the shares could well drop to nothing.

But it was possibly factored into the value of the shares when they were sold that governments might protect them - the Irish banks weren't a high tech companies and so if was probably felt in the market that a government might save them.

People can argue that the government shouldn't bail them out if they like.

I am arguing with the numbers. Numerically, people who bought bank shares will take a not-insignificant hit. The dividend on a share valued at €1.50 won't be the same as when it was €15/16/17/18. It may well be the case that the people deserve it. I'm just challenging the numbers.

Look, they'll get a dividend, the asset they own will be making money.
So long as they dont sell the shares and keep them for a number of years, they will eventually get their money back over the annual dividend, any share rises and any share splits that occur.
Until they sell those shares or the shares have been forcefully bought of them, they havent taken a hit....

otwb

kippy wrote: »

Sorry, slightly confused.
As a primary school teacher you need to get a teaching diploma (which is assessed usually in your first year) to probated. This is on top of your 3 (or 4 in some cases) year degree.
To be a secondary teacher, yes, you need a H Dip, which is extra to your primary degree.

I realise there is extra money for all of these degrees, diplomas and various other qualifications but that is standard across the public service (and MAY be standard across other public services across the world, the amount may differ however)

It is one career that I know of where the "quality" and level of your qualifications DIRECTLY impacts on your pay. (Primary School teaching) So why wouldnt those in the career take advantage of that?

Er...I have an honours primary degree and three postgraduate qualifications (H.Dip. / Grad. Dip / Masters). I worked in the health sector and did not get (or expect) any allowances for my qualifications and now work in the civil service and do not get (or expect) any additional allowances.

The Masters is directly related to the work that I do. In fact I wouldn't have my job if I didn't hold the qualification. The salary that I am paid is related to the work that I do and the qualifications and experience that I have to date.

...now take a teacher who gets a job based on qualifications and experience to date...then expects more money because of those same qualifications...

Although to be fair to the teachers I know some people who did nursing degrees in the dim and distant past and are now paid nursing salaries to work on hospital IT helpdesks. The system is rotten all the way through. Salaries should be based on the work that you do, not the fact that you did a part -time qualification that may or may not impact on the job that you do.

kippy

otwb wrote: »

Er...I have an honours primary degree and three postgraduate qualifications (H.Dip. / Grad. Dip / Masters). I worked in the health sector and did not get (or expect) any allowances for my qualifications and now work in the civil service and do not get (or expect) any additional allowances.

The Masters is directly related to the work that I do. In fact I wouldn't have my job if I didn't hold the qualification. The salary that I am paid is related to the work that I do and the qualifications and experience that I have to date.

...now take a teacher who gets a job based on qualifications and experience to date...then expects more money because of those same qualifications...

Although to be fair to the teachers I know some people who did nursing degrees in the dim and distant past and are now paid nursing salaries to work on hospital IT helpdesks. The system is rotten all the way through. Salaries should be based on the work that you do, not the fact that you did a part -time qualification that may or may not impact on the job that you do.

I dont disagree with those sentiments.......

doc_17

OMD wrote: »

Teachers just refuse to accept they are highly paid and are one of the groups to benefit hugely from the celtic tiger. This is even when you ignore the huge additional benefits, pension, sick pay, holidays etc. When shown how much they are paid they just go around in circles
1. Teachers are paid way more than other workers in Ireland
Answer: You cannot compare teachers to other workers. Teachers have degrees.

2 You show teachers earn way more than other workers in Ireland with degrees.
Answer: You cannot compare teachers to others with degrees, only other teachers

3. You show Irish teachers are paid way more than teachers in almost every country in the world.
Answer: It is because teachers work more

4. You show teachers in Ireland are paid way more (30% more) per hour worked than teachers in OECD or EU
Answer. That's because it is Ireland and everyone needs to earn more due to high prices.

Which brings us back to 1 again.

Also remember that in last 10 years (at least) teachers have received pay rises way in excess of inflation.
Also in these figures I have supplied I have not included the multitude of allowances you can get as a teacher thus increasing salaries even more.
I have not taken into account the generous tax system in Ireland (which I know is available to all workers) which would make take home pay in Ireland way higher than teachers in other countries and easily discounts the dubious "Ireland is expensive" argument

Many teachers have commented about how uninformed people are about teachers pay. Well consider yourselves informed.

1. Way more than which other workers? Do you mean doctors? Dentists? Nurses? Gardai? Accountants? Engineers? Solicitors?

2. Teaching is a harder job than some other areas where you go into with a degree so it should have a good salary to attract good people to it.

3. And because we do work harder than teachers in other countries (our class sizes are bigger so our productivity has to be higher) should we not get paid more?

4. You haven't shown that. You might like to think you have but you haven't. My answer to your 3rd point would do for this.

Just because you think it is so doesn't make it so. While you may believe you are informed, and you have made some valid points and criticisms that I as a teacher would accept are in our profession (such as abuse of sick leave), it does not mean that others do not have equally valid informed opinons. Talking down to people will never convince them.

Any anyway, is this debate not ended now since the pay was cut as the figures you are quoting are now out of date

FlutterinBantam

Doc.. you are fighting a losing battle my friend.


Everybody knows that teachers in Ireland are not downtrodden badly paid or overworked.

I'm not going to bore people with endless figures rebutting this and that, but I think you will find in all fairness now that teachers get a damn good deal.


And the taxpayer knows it.;)

doc_17

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Doc.. you are fighting a losing battle my friend.


Everybody knows that teachers in Ireland are not downtrodden badly paid or overworked.

I'm not going to bore people with endless figures rebutting this and that, but I think you will find in all fairness now that teachers get a damn good deal.


And the taxpayer knows it.;)

Thanks for not boring people

kangaroo

(This is talking about shares/share-holders - might not be of interest to many)

kippy wrote: »

Look, they'll get a dividend, the asset they own will be making money.
So long as they dont sell the shares and keep them for a number of years, they will eventually get their money back over the annual dividend, any share rises and any share splits that occur.
Until they sell those shares or the shares have been forcefully bought of them, they havent taken a hit....

What about having the option of selling shares? There is a difference with owning a house - you need to live somewhere and would have to pay rent if one didn't have a mortgage. One doesn't "need" bank shares. They are like a "high risk" form of saving that can be turned into money quickly. But if the shareholders try to access the money any time soon will be a fraction of what they invested so they will take a hit. (I'm not saying that home owners haven't taken a hit because in a way they have).

As I said, I've no problem with you saying the government shouldn't bail out the banks for whatever reason. I just think it is incorrect to say the bank shareholders haven't taken a hit/had no punishment because you think they will get to the future values (there presumably aren't many who believe that or the values wouldn't be at the value there are at now). Many will die before the values reach previous levels (note again, I realise that was the gamble they took, I'm just arguing with the logic).

Even if it was 50/50 that AIB (say) would be totally nationalised, it would still be worth your while buying their shares if you are really convinced that, if they aren't nationalised, they will get to their previous levels in the coming years as the increase would be so huge E(x)=p1.x1+p2.x2=0.5*€0+0.5*€15.30 (say the value went back to €15.30)=€7.65 is the expected value (i.e. 5 times the current value - not sure what the time frame is. Say you think it'd get there in 4 years, it would be equivalent of a yield 49% per year [from 5^(1/4)] on the expected value so better than pretty much anything else - but it would require a 77.8% [from 10^(1/4)] increase each and every year). However, other people in the market clearly aren't as convinced.