Prime Time (w)Bankers

AARRRGH

Deleted User wrote: »

oh dear you dont even see the problems that destroyed our economy.
Conflict of interest? You wonder why the Govt were so quick to bail out banks that will cost us and the next generation?

You cannot let the little things slide we have to get the little things right or it breeds like a disease and rots the entire system .

Unfortunately in Ireland it has led to institutionalised child rape and the destruction of our economy. This is about how we run our country and what we want it to become and what we have let it become.

SNAP OUT OF IT NO PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR ANYONE :mad::mad::mad:

Your part of the problem if you let the little things slip

I don't think you understand what destroyed our economy. I will summarise it for you:

1. An incompetent financial regulator
2. Politicians and the media encouraging home ownership
3. An economically illiterate public panic buying houses no matter what their price
4. Investors buying multiple properties they could not afford
5. Banks being foolish and greedy
6. Infinite cheap credit

A few loans to politicians is not what destroyed our economy.

So get off your ****ing high horse. :rolleyes:

fricatus

Riskymove wrote: »

he is a clever man and well aware of perception

perhaps it would be more educational to see how the rest of his families lifestyle has changed...

Yeah, very true - although my point that the mighty have fallen is valid nevertheless... whether it's because the bank (:D) repossessed the Merc (unlikely) or whether he's fallen from grace and needs to display a more modest lifestyle for the sake of optics (much more likely).

Maybe there's a third explanation: a dark blue Passat is about the most inconspicuous vehicle on the road, and I'm sure Seánie wants to keep the oul' head down. I don't know about you, but I will stare in the window of an S-Class to see if I recognise who's in it, but I wouldn't bat an eyelid at an anonymous big VW.

AARRRGH

fricatus wrote: »

Maybe there's a third explanation: a dark blue Passat is about the most inconspicuous vehicle on the road, and I'm sure Seánie wants to keep the oul' head down. I don't know about you, but I will stare in the window of an S-Class to see if I recognise who's in it, but I wouldn't bat an eyelid at an anonymous big VW.

I think this is the reason.

I'm just amazed the guy is still living in Ireland. There are a lot of very angry people in this country at the moment, so I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up dead in a ditch somewhere.

zootroid

Riskymove wrote: »

so the Bank or perhaps the Boss of the bank, broke their "guidelines"

1. is that illegal?

2. whats that got to do with McCreevey?

The guidelines were broken by Fingleton, but he still has to report to the board of directors and shareholders generally. Those guidelines are put in place for a reason. Suppose he just by-pass the guidelines for anyone he feels like? A childhood friend who happens to be a property developer? Then years later the property developer can't repay the loans. Can you see now why the shareholders and board of directors would feel aggrieved? Those guidelines are there for a reason, there should be no preferential treatment for anyone!!!

And secondly, you find nothing wrong with the fact that it was for the Minister for Finance? Someone who could decide to change how the whole industry operates? The whole thing stinks.

TDs now have to declare their assets, donations etc. But I would like to see them declare their loans as well, just to see how much into the banks they are. There is potential for conflict of interest there. I want to see TDs introducing legislation that favours the consumer, not the banks.

Ireland has an awful lot to do to regain our reputation. I see the whole system as being dishonest and corrupt. And having worked abroad, I have been told we are seen as a banana republic. Having seen how other countries operate, it's hard to disagree.

Riskymove

fricatus wrote: »

Maybe there's a third explanation: a dark blue Passat is about the most inconspicuous vehicle on the road, and I'm sure Seánie wants to keep the oul' head down. I don't know about you, but I will stare in the window of an S-Class to see if I recognise who's in it, but I wouldn't bat an eyelid at an anonymous big VW.

ah..that is my point not a third explanation

Riskymove

zootroid wrote: »

The guidelines were broken by Fingleton, but he still has to report to the board of directors and shareholders generally. Those guidelines are put in place for a reason. Suppose he just by-pass the guidelines for anyone he feels like? A childhood friend who happens to be a property developer? Then years later the property developer can't repay the loans. Can you see now why the shareholders and board of directors would feel aggrieved? Those guidelines are there for a reason, there should be no preferential treatment for anyone!!!

Its absolutely a matter for the bank and shareholders...that is my point all along

but there is little to show why any of the people who got the loan should resign

And secondly, you find nothing wrong with the fact that it was for the Minister for Finance? Someone who could decide to change how the whole industry operates? The whole thing stinks.

He sought a loan and the bank approved it, why is it his problem what scrutiny/intenrla procedures were followed?

as long as he is repaying it and as I mentioned is not getting special rates or other accommodation I dont see what the problem is

are we suggesting he should not have got the loan?

TDs now have to declare their assets, donations etc. But I would like to see them declare their loans as well, just to see how much into the banks they are. There is potential for conflict of interest there. I want to see TDs introducing legislation that favours the consumer, not the banks.

no problem with that

deadhead13

Riskymove wrote: »

so the Bank or perhaps the Boss of the bank, broke their "guidelines"

1. is that illegal?

2. whats that got to do with McCreevey?

Whats it got to do with McCreevey? Who benefited from Micheal Fingleton breaking the building society's rules.

The same Micheal Fingleton who decided to transform the Irish Nationwide into a bank for property developers and builders. Resulting in the proposed 8 billion euro transfer of bad loans to NAMA, almost its entire portfolio. How many more rules did he break?

Riskymove

deadhead13 wrote: »

Whats it got to do with McCreevey? Who benefited from Micheal Fingleton breaking the building society's rules.

how did he "benefit"?

he sought a loan from the bank and it was approved...he is repaying it

now as I say if he was somehow accommodated by being given a loan he was not entitled to or something, ok

is he not allowed have a mortgage or soemthing?

deadhead13

Riskymove wrote: »

how did he "benefit"?

he sought a loan from the bank and it was approved...he is repaying it

now as I say if he was somehow accommodated by being given a loan he was not entitled to or something, ok

is he not allowed have a mortgage or soemthing?

He was not "entitled" to get over a 100% mortgage from that building society. Nobody was. So to say he didn't benefit is a bit ridiculous really.

Riskymove

deadhead13 wrote: »

He was not "entitled" to get over a 100% mortgage from that building society. Nobody was. So to say he didn't benefit is a bit ridiculous really.

why...its a loan...he wasn't given free cash

the bank made the decision to give him the loan, he shouldn't have been given preferential treatment but at the end of the day its a matter for the nationwide



look, Fingers is one of the biggest chancers we had on the financial scene and as far as I can see treated nationwide as a personal kingdom...and as he and his cronies seem to have controlled the place its unlikely shareholders were going take him to task (see all the stories about his pension)

its pretty clear he was free and loose with the banks loans and the bank is being bailed out; its one of the sad elements to the whole economic situation


and McCreevy of all politicans, I'd gladly see him have a fall from grace


but I read the details and I just dont see it..what action could be taken against McCreevy here? he was given a loan by a banking firm and he is fulfilling his side (i.e. repaying it)

ei.sdraob

Riskymove wrote: »

how did he "benefit"?

he got a loan that under responsible lending practices he shouldnt have got, or would have got with much delay and checking

the whole point of the show was that banks were throwing money around

deadhead13

Riskymove wrote: »

but I read the details and I just dont see it..what action could be taken against McCreevy here? he was given a loan by a banking firm and he is fulfilling his side (i.e. repaying it)

Fair enough, I don't expect any action to taken over this. But there are questions to be answered. Like how much did the Finance Ministers of the past decade, which of course includes McCreevy, know about what was going on in the banking sector. So to hear of this "favour" is just another reason why there needs to be an inquiry.

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

he got a loan that under responsible lending practices he shouldnt have got, or would have got with much delay and checking

Yes i get that

but where's the line

In relation to delays, If you are a long-standing customer or a big client I would not expect to examined as long as a new unknown person

as i say the point is that the bank took the risk and its a matter for the bank to react to that

I think we could easily expand the argument to many ordinary people who were given loans they should not have been given, what should happen to them?

the whole point of the show was that banks were throwing money around

yes i get that and I think we all knew that was the case

what i dont get is suggestions about politicians being in trouble or people being jailed

where is the evidence for that?

Riskymove

deadhead13 wrote: »

Fair enough, I don't expect any action to taken over this. But there are questions to be answered. Like how much did the Finance Ministers of the past decade, which of course includes McCreevy, know about what was going on in the banking sector. So to hear of this "favour" is just another reason why there needs to be an inquiry.

I am fully behind an inquiry in to how we got here

soden12

stepbar wrote: »

The prime time programme will probably be, in time, one of the most defining programmes in Irish history. Nothing really suprised me tonight, as it focused primarily on Anglo and Irish Nationwide.

As far as I'm concerned both of them banks are responcible, along with the Financial Regulator for what is now happening in Ireland. Of course, the traditional banks have their fair share to blame. But as markets go, companies compete, and as such, because of the reckless lending the like of Anglo and INBS were engaging in, forced the traditional banks to act, rightly or wrongly. One must ask where was the Financial Regulator in all this. They were clearly lacking in terms of financial regulation during the years from 2005 - 2007. I doubt anyone from the office of the Financial Regulator will be jailed for their inaction.

So the official line from the big banks is that it was these two small-fry which destroyed the banking system.

When will the Big Banks get it into their head that they are not victims ? It's like going into court and expecting to get let off for rioting because the little fella was doing it as well.

ei.sdraob

Riskymove wrote: »

Yes i get that

but where's the line

In relation to delays, If you are a long-standing customer or a big client I would not expect to examined as long as a new unknown person

thats the problem

he wasnt examined AT ALL

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thats the problem

he wasnt examined AT ALL

even so, thats a risk the bank took, its not good practice but its their risk to take

its not like he was an unknown new client

Daithinski

I was shocked to hear Fitzpatrick hasn't been paying back his 110 million loan (400k a month, the price of a 3 bed semi at the height of the boom) and he's still a free man.

Paulj

The problem with all this is that it breaks the rules of the game. The bank can take ludicrous risks without any fear of the reprocutions. Why? - because they know that the government must bail them out for the sake of the country if things go wrong.

A normal business doesn't have this luxory, but because the economy 'needs' the banks the country has a certain vested in interest in them.

I think the top guys at the banks knew this (after all they rubbed shoulders with the politicians). So there was no real risk for them to take on risky loans. They were producing unprecedented profits at the time - which gave them unprecedented salaries - and even when things went wrong they made off with a nice hefty pension, a bonus and a golden handshake.

whynotwhycanti

Riskymove wrote: »

even so, thats a risk the bank took, its not good practice but its their risk to take

its not like he was an unknown new client

That is true, it was their risk and it proved to be a bad decision. Now in real terms, Irish Nationwide are technically bankrupt, but have had their toxic assets secured by NAMA. So basically, a bank can take a big risk, and if it does not work out, can be bailed out by the government, consisting of the same political party, whose ex finance minister got one of these high risk fast tracked loans that led to this problem in the first place. IF we are bailing them out, the risk is no longer only the banks but it is shared amongst the taxpayer also.

Did Brian Cowen know about these types of loans? If so, then he has lied to us because has repeatedly told us that on the advice given to him he could not have foreseen what was coming. Did Lenihan know about these types of loans? If so then he’ll have to go back on his ‘our recession has been caused by the global economic crisis’ and admit he has lied to our faces also. If this crisis was caused by irresponsible lending by banks, that extended to politicians in power, who oversaw this whole crisis, the whole system therefore is rotten to the core.

Zynks

Riskymove wrote: »

so the Bank or perhaps the Boss of the bank, broke their "guidelines"

1. is that illegal?

2. whats that got to do with McCreevey?

Fiduciary Duty

zootroid

Riskymove wrote: »

Its absolutely a matter for the bank and shareholders...that is my point all along

but there is little to show why any of the people who got the loan should resign

I never said anyone who received a loan should resign (eg McCreevy). But if the chief exec doesn't follow the banks own guidelines without the knowledge of shareholders, then it shows how good corporate governance was lacking. I'm sure this would have been a matter for the external auditors, who are supposed to report to the shareholders.

Riskymove wrote: »

He sought a loan and the bank approved it, why is it his problem what scrutiny/intenrla procedures were followed?

as long as he is repaying it and as I mentioned is not getting special rates or other accommodation I dont see what the problem is

are we suggesting he should not have got the loan?

No, we are not suggesting he should not have gotten the loan. We are saying someone in a position of power, where there is potential for conflict of interest, should not have been given preferential treatment.

And this ought to have been an issue for the financial regulator (who is charged with looking after consumer's interests) as it is possible McCreevy could have implemented a policy favourable to the bank/industry.

Now I'm not saying he did anything favourable in return, all I am saying is that it is of concern to the financial regulator because of the potential for conflict of interest.

Riskymove

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

That is true, it was their risk and it proved to be a bad decision.

why bad?

has he defaulted?

And this ought to have been an issue for the financial regulator (who is charged with looking after consumer's interests) as it is possible McCreevy could have implemented a policy favourable to the bank/industry.

Is the regulator informed of every individual mortgage given by every firm?

Now in real terms, Irish Nationwide are technically bankrupt, but have had their toxic assets secured by NAMA.

tbf NAMA loans are a differnet animal altogether than McCreevy getting a mortgage a bit too easily

whynotwhycanti

I never said McCreevy had to default, i said it was the same type of fast track loans, without any checking that has caused this mess.

Sean Dunne got his loan for ballsbridge in the exact same manor, quick phonecall, couple days later had the money. Now if the proper screening had be done, where was he going to spend the money, was it sustainable etc etc he never would have been approved a loan in such a short period for such a huge amount. My point was that it was this same type of obscene lending on a larger scale that caused this mess. McCreevy as Minister for Finance, in getting personal loans in this manner, must have known that this was going on on a larger scale. His duty as an elected representative to the state is to make the best decisions for the electorate. Now he obviously didn’t think that these fast track loans were an issue as he was partaking in them, albeit not on NAMA levels but on a personal level. The power of hindsight has shown he was wrong, that these type of loans has caused a huge mess. Mc Creevy may not have to default on his loan with Nationwide but here could be a lot of people who got fast tracked loans who may have to and these toxic loans are included in the bail out money for Nationwide.

ei.sdraob

Riskymove wrote: »

even so, thats a risk the bank took, its not good practice but its their risk to take

its not like he was an unknown new client

and there lies the issue

the banks were giving out risky loans, which is almost like them standing on street corners and throwing money into passerby

that wouldn't have been a problem if they were risking THEIR money

the issue lies with the fact that these banks went cap in hand to the taxpayer to be bailed out for THEIR mistakes by OUR money


their risk became our risk

zootroid

Riskymove wrote: »

Is the regulator informed of every individual mortgage given by every firm?

I would say the regulator knew of very little!!

But seriously, I would only think it's right that it ask about loans given to TDs. In the same way that external auditors ask about loans given to members of the board and senior management.

Are you seriously saying that you have absolutely no problem with what went on?

Or can you at least see that someone might have a problem with what went on?

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

their risk became our risk

but only in the case of the large developer loans

there is no bail out for mccreevy's mortgage

Riskymove

zootroid wrote: »

I would say the regulator knew of very little!!

But seriously, I would only think it's right that it ask about loans given to TDs. In the same way that external auditors ask about loans given to members of the board and senior management.

yep, they should have to divulge such details

Are you seriously saying that you have absolutely no problem with what went on?

Or can you at least see that someone might have a problem with what went on?

please read my posts

The actions by Fingers were extremely bad practice and are symptomatic of what went on with developers and is part of the reason we are where we are

I really dont have a big fit about mccreevy in this case. sure he got preferential treatment which will obviously annoy people but at the end of the day He wanted a mortgage and he got one and he is repaying it...I dont see why if Nationwide took it more seriously the same thing would have happened

the same cannot be said of some of the NAMA loans and other actions since (e.g. propping up developments until NAMA takes them etc)

ei.sdraob

Riskymove wrote: »

but only in the case of the large developer loans

there is no bail out for mccreevy's mortgage

by bailing out his bank (either thru giving money or NAMA) we are indirectly bailing out everyone tied to the bank

anyways mccreevy's loan is small potatoes, i see thats what your are trying to say, and you are right in grand scheme of things its just one example

but its an example of how the system was endemically sick, and how a corrupt FF'ers knew about it and instead of dealing with the issue sailed with the wind since it benefited them


if we had proper whistle blower protections, who knows what larger stories might emerge

Ulysses Gaze

This wasn't really shocking stuff as it has been drip-fed through the print media over the last year.

If it does one thing though, I really hope it exposes Ahern for the total and utter gob****e,corrupt Gombeen that he is for that percentage of the populous who think he's a 'lovely man'. The little quips at the 'doom-mongers' (who got it right) really show how much of an ignorant clown the man is.

And as for Seanie Fitz? Well he was asked to leave Browns restaurant about 6/8 months ago as diners complained of his presence and had a similar experience at Royal Dublin Golf Club recently. My view?

If he doesn't end up in jail then give him the next best thing - ostracise him from everywhere. You see him in public? Make a comment, through a few coppers at his feet, complain to management if he enters a restaurant that you're in.

Make public life as uncomfortable for him as possible.