More reassuring news on Irish corporate culture

Sand

Its maybe a bit alarmist to state Ireland makes Zimbabwe look honest, but if it is then I dread to think what Zimbabwe is like.

Per the Sindos story, backed by Shane Ross so stop rolling your eyes, Goodbody the wholly owned subsidiary of AIB undertook some shennanigans back in Nov 2008 when AIB was gasping for capital.

- They took a "house" decision to sell BoI stock and buy into AIB stock, their parent company.
- They did this without informing their clients, on the basis of the investments being under discretionary management - I.E. Goodbody could do what they liked with the clients money
- They outright dismiss claims that this might be construed as trying to prop up the share price of their parent company at a time when AIB, like all Irish banks, were screaming for investment.
- Meanwhile, whilst Goodbody were selling out of BoI stock, they were busily issuing market research raising BoI stock to a BUY. I.E. they were encouraging demand from the public for a stock they had taken a "house" decision to dump.
- Unusually, the trades into AIB were done for no commission, which is rare.
- They argue that it was a strategic decision made for the clients benefit, however they were similarly advising people to buy into BoI, so if Goodbodys were making these calls based on an honest assessment of BoI, why were they so wildly diverging? Goodbody response: "I have no idea. You will have to ask somebody there."
- Apparently those trading into AIB as a result of these deals have done worse than if they had remained in BoI. Of course, they would have done better again if they had traded out of Irish banks altogether one would assume.

I guess while you will never see any Irish insider in a courtroom for corruption, at least you can be advised never to put your money into any investment managed by those insiders.

Liam Byrne

Heard something similar on The Sunday Supplement this morning about Goldman Sachs.

It's crazy......I mean, once upon a time we used to respect and trust leaders (i.e. politicians), the church and bankers, and looks where it's gotten us!

Orwell was spot-on!

The only difference is that it's not just power - it's a sicken greed for far too much money.

If only money was seen for what it is - a mechanism to make bartering easier - rather than a "lets amass more than anyone else has, even though we don't need it and will never use it".

The sooner society restarts from scratch the better. But unfortunately, those capable of making that decision are the ones with the most money to lose, so they'll never allow it to happen.

zootroid

Sand wrote: »

Its maybe a bit alarmist to state Ireland makes Zimbabwe look honest, but if it is then I dread to think what Zimbabwe is like.

Per the Sindos story, backed by Shane Ross so stop rolling your eyes, Goodbody the wholly owned subsidiary of AIB undertook some shennanigans back in Nov 2008 when AIB was gasping for capital.

- They took a "house" decision to sell BoI stock and buy into AIB stock, their parent company.
- They did this without informing their clients, on the basis of the investments being under discretionary management - I.E. Goodbody could do what they liked with the clients money
- They outright dismiss claims that this might be construed as trying to prop up the share price of their parent company at a time when AIB, like all Irish banks, were screaming for investment.
- Meanwhile, whilst Goodbody were selling out of BoI stock, they were busily issuing market research raising BoI stock to a BUY. I.E. they were encouraging demand from the public for a stock they had taken a "house" decision to dump.
- Unusually, the trades into AIB were done for no commission, which is rare.
- They argue that it was a strategic decision made for the clients benefit, however they were similarly advising people to buy into BoI, so if Goodbodys were making these calls based on an honest assessment of BoI, why were they so wildly diverging? Goodbody response: "I have no idea. You will have to ask somebody there."
- Apparently those trading into AIB as a result of these deals have done worse than if they had remained in BoI. Of course, they would have done better again if they had traded out of Irish banks altogether one would assume.

I guess while you will never see any Irish insider in a courtroom for corruption, at least you can be advised never to put your money into any investment managed by those insiders.

Interesting story, certainly shady dealings alright. Just started reading Shane Ross's "Bankers", if what he's saying is true, it's frightening what went on.

PeakOutput

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Heard something similar on The Sunday Supplement this morning about Goldman Sachs.

id be very suprised

Liam Byrne

PeakOutput wrote: »

id be very suprised

Well, I might have gotten it wrong, but Ed Hayes was on talking about short-selling and getting insurance for losses while recommending the opposite to their clients.

I was on the way to work, so might misheard who it was, but I don't think I did, unless Hayes switched quickly from talking about G.S. to someone else, and I missed it......if so, my sincere apologies.

That said, I just realised that the O.P.'s source was the Sindo.......wouldn't trust a thing that paper says. Although Ross does give it some credibility.

jmayo

Sand wrote: »

Its maybe a bit alarmist to state Ireland makes Zimbabwe look honest, but if it is then I dread to think what Zimbabwe is like.

Per the Sindos story, backed by Shane Ross so stop rolling your eyes, Goodbody the wholly owned subsidiary of AIB undertook some shennanigans back in Nov 2008 when AIB was gasping for capital.

- They took a "house" decision to sell BoI stock and buy into AIB stock, their parent company.
- They did this without informing their clients, on the basis of the investments being under discretionary management - I.E. Goodbody could do what they liked with the clients money
- They outright dismiss claims that this might be construed as trying to prop up the share price of their parent company at a time when AIB, like all Irish banks, were screaming for investment.
- Meanwhile, whilst Goodbody were selling out of BoI stock, they were busily issuing market research raising BoI stock to a BUY. I.E. they were encouraging demand from the public for a stock they had taken a "house" decision to dump.
- Unusually, the trades into AIB were done for no commission, which is rare.
- They argue that it was a strategic decision made for the clients benefit, however they were similarly advising people to buy into BoI, so if Goodbodys were making these calls based on an honest assessment of BoI, why were they so wildly diverging? Goodbody response: "I have no idea. You will have to ask somebody there."
- Apparently those trading into AIB as a result of these deals have done worse than if they had remained in BoI. Of course, they would have done better again if they had traded out of Irish banks altogether one would assume.

I guess while you will never see any Irish insider in a courtroom for corruption, at least you can be advised never to put your money into any investment managed by those insiders.

And you are surprised that Goodbody's did yet another dodgy deal and that it involved their parent company ?
Check out Dáil committee on Economic Regulatory Affairs where Shane Ross tore one eugene sheehy a new ass**** with reference to Goodbody Nevis operation and the firing and affective blacklisting of the whistleblower and former internal auditor of AIB, Eugen McErlean.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0325/1224243366853.html

http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0521/aib.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/stockbrokers-hid-aib-deals-behind-secret-tax-havens-1684886.html

Oh and what happened, oh the stock exchange gave a little tap on the wrists AFAIK.
Must have been given for getting caught out, since insider trading is de facto allowed in Ireland.

AIB has a stink about it and has done so from way back in the 80s.
First we had ICI, then we had DIRT and they were one of the worst culprits at non resident accounts, then we had overcharging, then we had directors little offshore investment funds, then we had Nevis operation and now we have this.
Has AIB ever been fined by CB or IFSRA ?
Ahhhh NO, nada, nein, noi, in whatever language you choose to use.

Actually AFAIK the first cheif executive of IFSRA one liam o'reilly (who has managed to avoid the taint of the meltdown that micahel neary now carries even though he is equally to blame IMHO) asked McErlean to withdraw his allegations of overcharging against AIB.

Funny that isn't it :rolleyes:

Here is extract from Indo article Mar 2009.

The former auditor said he ordered Goodbody to stop using the scheme, which was called Charterhouse, because it could have been used to break the law. The auditor ran checks to see whether the bank's share price showed any evidence of being manipulated during the period that Charterhouse operated but there were no signs of manipulation, he added.

Mr McErlean said he doubted that this scheme was legal but noted that Goodbody had obtained advice that it was legal. The scheme was first brought to the attention of the deputy financial regulator, Patrick Neary, who later became the regulator, and then to the attention of Liam O'Reilly. Neither took action.

The whole place stinks and until some top gombeens are seen to be slopping out in Mountjoy it is a charter to continue. :rolleyes:

ballinatray

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Heard something similar on The Sunday Supplement this morning about Goldman Sachs.

It's crazy......I mean, once upon a time we used to respect and trust leaders (i.e. politicians), the church and bankers, and looks where it's gotten us!

Orwell was spot-on!

The only difference is that it's not just power - it's a sicken greed for far too much money.

If only money was seen for what it is - a mechanism to make bartering easier - rather than a "lets amass more than anyone else has, even though we don't need it and will never use it".

The sooner society restarts from scratch the better. But unfortunately, those capable of making that decision are the ones with the most money to lose, so they'll never allow it to happen.

ok.. good point but greed is the engine of business...its necessary to start it off in the first place...the corner shop does not start off by giving away free goods so greed drives all business and therefore needs reward also... but now that we are in **** we blame greed but the real problem is lack of overall supervision...just like a dog will chase a cat ( thanks for dog wardens ) a banker will chase money and equally needs supervision, but with the government and regulator by gov proxy living in the dog kennel what hope did the economy have...

flutered

up until recently the old people never trusted banks, then a goverment and bank pr campaign started to encorouge them to have their money safe, where where the criminals would not have acess to it, ha ha were they not having some laugh at that, the goverment then knew how much the individual
owened, so they sent of a tax demand, a nice little earnier, the banks then came up with various schemes to invest the money, when the tax man made inquires the bank staff advised a lot of people not to worry resulting in their friends the goverment getting a larger tax windfall,through penaltys etc, the banks were not accountable, the individual was.