Anglo-Irish Bank: Pay Increases

ei.sdraob

Laminations wrote: »

Float the bank with a price tag of 1 billion. That would cost about 250 euros per head of population. This is opposed to the 3000+ euros it will cost us should we spend over 10 billion on it.

yeh

see my post earlier about selling them and the state offering the buyer "a deal they cant refuse"

just because weFF sunk billions into it doesnt mean we have to continue to do so

since the State now owes the bank, the state can offer adding selling points now to a sale of this bank, such as tax concessions and land/property

Laminations

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yeh

see my post earlier about selling them and the state offering the buyer "a deal they cant refuse"

just because weFF sunk billions into it doesnt mean we have to continue to do so

since the State now owes the bank, the state can offer adding selling points now to a sale of this bank, such as tax concessions and land/property

Yep. Either way we should get this delinquent monkey off our back. Ansley can make up his figures while he finds a new job and Alan dukes can find someting else abhorrent to justify. Public interest director my arse

MaceFace

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thats 9 billion more than we thought was needed only few weeks ago
and god knows how many more billions would be needed

i would not trust his words, i want to see accounts, not words from someone who is getting paid a nice salary for beating a dead horse

please do post a link to Anglo's balance sheet and accounts

Anglo is a dead bank, no one in their right mind (except the government who are clearly not in right mind) would put any money into it

It is not €9b more than we thought we needed only a few weeks ago. To make this claim, your belief must be that a few weeks ago it would cost nothing to keep the bank going. What ever gave your that wrong opinion?

Judging from the crap that is being posted in this thread (and a lot of what is on the forum), you would not understand the accounts and your next request would be for something to point out in black and white where it says €9b. When it is explained to you that that would be in a business plan and not the accounts, you would want that.
When you see that (which I fully expect to either be made public or distributed to a select group of people due to its business sensitive nature), you would say that this is put together by "interested parties" who are only in it for themselves.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

heres an idea

the government puts up Anglo and all its assets and debts for sale

anyone who buys it can operate in the state for X years and pay no tax on profits (might require special legislation for this exceptional case) i.e: 0-1% corpo tax,
we can also throw in other sweeteners like property, networking commits etc etc
anyone who buys Anglo will know they be takin a hit up front BUT will potentially be able to save billions if they correctly funnel their taxes thru this arrangement

basically we be screwing other countries,
but we already attract large companies here in order for them to avoid high taxes
and do just that

this is same concept taken to a new level

Honestly, I am trying to be as nice as I can about this and be as rational as possible without resorting to activities that could get me a ban, but it is getting very very close and due to the constant "stick your fingers in your ears and shout la la la whenever anyone makes an opinion you don't like", I am getting very tiresome of trying to extract a reasonable intelligent debate on the subject.

I have asked repeatedly for you to back up your comments with some details, not links to others opinion or fact sheets or any such nonsense, but for you to explain why you think Anglo need another €9b on top of the figures mentioned in the paper this morning in your opinion. You mention a figure, I ask why, you move on to some other topic. It goes around in circles.

You have repeatedly gone off and asking for a link to Anglos accounts and trying to change the subject.



I have continued with this debate because I know there are some posters who have something valuable to add, and your second post above is the only posting I have seen from the anti-Anglo at all costs brigade that was really added something to the debate (another posting about selling the bank to people who won't/can't pay).

This idea was mentioned a few times recently and discussed in the media about selling the bank to someone like Santander. However, in order for this to be attractive to Santander (or another large foreign bank), the books would still have to be cleaned up and I think the figure mentioned in the media (not by the bank) is that it would cost about €20b.

I am not trying to single you out, and mean no personal offence.

MaceFace

LauraOrlagh wrote: »

You can't give pay increases when you don't have the money!!! But in Anglo's case.. sure they'll pay them using state money.. our money.. they're practically robbing the state to keep their failure of a bank afloat as it is and they now have the cheek to turn around and say they're going to give themselves pay increases??? I don't care what extra responsibilities they've taken on... what extra work has EVERY ONE of us taken on since this recession started and not got extra pay for?? And we're the hard-working citizens financing them.. I just can't believe this is even an issue!! it's beyond all belief!!! It makes me so so angry!!

I have already given what I think could be used as justifications for the increases. I am not saying I agree with them but I am honest enough to say I don't know who got the increases and there are plenty of reasons why we may need to give these increases (risk losing good people from the company)

Laminations wrote: »

Float the bank with a price tag of 1 billion. That would cost about 250 euros per head of population. This is opposed to the 3000+ euros it will cost us should we spend over 10 billion on it.

Ok, this just won't fly at all.
It is just like saying why does any of the mega developers who are now broke not sell their businesses to a hobo on the street for nowt and put give him a tenner for his troubles.

Laminations

MaceFace wrote: »

I have already given what I think could be used as justifications for the increases. I am not saying I agree with them but I am honest enough to say I don't know who got the increases and there are plenty of reasons why we may need to give these increases (risk losing good people from the company)

You see if i was those 'talented' staff i'd be worried about my CV. Hows this for a reference.

'Didn't do much, when asked to take on more work, demanded more money. For someone working on the accounts of the bank they had no grasp of its lack of money. Denied pay rise, threw a hissy fit and left. I would not recommend hiring this person under any conditions'

They work for what they agreed or they get fired and the government as their employer makes sure they find it very difficult to get employment elsewhere.

woodseb

1-Denial
2-Anger
3-Bargaining
4-Depression
5-Acceptance

i think some of us are on stage 3...

have they even bothered looking for a buyer?

Nationalised banks are often sold off to private equity firms after a short period of time. No equity firm would want Anglo but if you split the sale amongst enough buyers they'd easily absorb the loss. I have no idea whether my idea is viable though

while some of us are on stage 5

i am looking forward from here to see how the government can get out of this whole with the least cost so forgive me if i say "oh well they are now privatized, so eat sh1t" because that's the reality unfortunately

woodseb

Laminations wrote: »

How much would is cost to buy Anglo?

it would cost nothing to buy anglo, we'd have to pay someone to take it off our hands

Laminations

woodseb wrote: »

i think some of us are on stage 3...





while some of us are on stage 5

You give me too much credit placing me at 3, i'm still firmly planted at 2, anger. But thats a damn site better than where the bankers who want pay rises are- denial denial denial. And aren't those stages. of recovery reserved for situations where nothing can be done? Would you be so quick to accept the following. An idiot doctor hacks off one of your legs. Another idiot suggests that they cut the other off to even you out. Now you can sit back and accept that kind of crap only worried about reducing blood loss. I'd be more inclined to question why my first leg was amputated and ask could it be sowed back on. If that wasn't possible i'd seriously question the logic of another leg going.

For this bank its just good money after bad and you're willing to accept that, along with pay rises for the staff

Laminations

woodseb wrote: »

it would cost nothing to buy anglo, we'd have to pay someone to take it off our hands

As it stands the government is liable for all debts. In a privatised bank shareholders have limited shareholder liability. If anglo failed before nationalisation shareholders would have lost all and apart from knock on effects to other banks, which some claim would have been catastrophic, it would have ended there. I'm suggesting going back to that situation with the people of ireland buying the bank, reprivatising it and letting the government use their money to shore up the other legitimate banks. We as shareholders would buy in knowing we would lose our shares as when the bank failed shares would go to zero but this would be a calculated and concrete loss and i think a damn site smaller than 10billion

MaceFace

Laminations wrote: »

You see if i was those 'talented' staff i'd be worried about my CV. Hows this for a reference.

'Didn't do much, when asked to take on more work, demanded more money. For someone working on the accounts of the bank they had no grasp of its lack of money. Denied pay rise, threw a hissy fit and left. I would not recommend hiring this person under any conditions'

They work for what they agreed or they get fired and the government as their employer makes sure they find it very difficult to get employment elsewhere.

I see where you are coming from, but I think a lot of this is coming from either media soundbites which make great headlines or the opposition trying to make a political football of something very serious.

Think about it. Say we work for Anglo and have done fo the last 15 years. We followed the instructions passed down to us and checked the paperwork that the rule book said and forwarded on the paper work to the relevant departments. We also done some of the brain work and made sure that any loans we gave out followed the banks guidelines.
Those guidelines are set by senior management and approved by the board, so it is not like we can overrule them.
Now, the bank falls apart and a lot of the people we have worked with have been let go. Now management comes to me and says that we want you to have the extra responsibility of working out NAMA loans and reviewing and signing off the paperwork for many of these transfers (because your manager has been let go). You will thus have a lot more responsibilty and a lot more work.

You say okay and ask for more money (after all, thats the reason you are working there).
If Anglo tells them no, then they run a risk that you will move into your new role, stick your new title on your CV and start looking for a new job.
That is the way this would play out as most the people there are not responsible for the position it is in, exactly the same way the staff at EP Mooney or Tommys Wonderland of Value, or Hughes and Hughes are not responsible for the collapse of those companies.

Unless we want this bank to be wound down, staff retention is critical.

And if you think that banks would not hire these people just because they worked in Anglo, then you are very very wrong.

Laminations

MaceFace wrote: »

I see where you are coming from, but I think a lot of this is coming from either media soundbites which make great headlines or the opposition trying to make a political football of something very serious.

Think about it. Say we work for Anglo and have done fo the last 15 years. We followed the instructions passed down to us and checked the paperwork that the rule book said and forwarded on the paper work to the relevant departments. We also done some of the brain work and made sure that any loans we gave out followed the banks guidelines.
Those guidelines are set by senior management and approved by the board, so it is not like we can overrule them.
Now, the bank falls apart and a lot of the people we have worked with have been let go. Now management comes to me and says that we want you to have the extra responsibility of working out NAMA loans and reviewing and signing off the paperwork for many of these transfers (because your manager has been let go). You will thus have a lot more responsibilty and a lot more work.

You say okay and ask for more money (after all, thats the reason you are working there).
If Anglo tells them no, then they run a risk that you will move into your new role, stick your new title on your CV and start looking for a new job.
That is the way this would play out as most the people there are not responsible for the position it is in, exactly the same way the staff at EP Mooney or Tommys Wonderland of Value, or Hughes and Hughes are not responsible for the collapse of those companies.

Unless we want this bank to be wound down, staff retention is critical.

And if you think that banks would not hire these people just because they worked in Anglo, then you are very very wrong.

Did staff at these other companies seek pay increases? Everyone in this recession lucky enough to have a job has taken on extra responsibilities for no extra money or more likely less money. It matters not whether the staff at Anglo were responsible for the bank busting or not. My god sure replace Anglo with Passport office and you get the same situation.

Think about it. Say we work for the Passport office and have done fo the last 15 years. We followed the instructions passed down to us etc etc.
Now, the country falls apart and some of the people we have worked with have retired or contracts not renewed plus there is a moratorium. Now management comes to me and says that we want you to have the extra responsibility and paperwork as they cannot hire as many fixed-term contract staff (usually 90-130, only hiring 50) to deal with workload this time of year. PLUS here have a pay cut. You will thus have a lot more responsibilty and a lot more work AND YOU WILL DO IT FOR LESS MONEY.

Your defending of them is a joke.

And if banks would hire people on the back of terrible references warning them otherwise then the banks have learned nothing.

MaceFace

Laminations wrote: »

Did staff at these other companies seek pay increases? Everyone in this recession lucky enough to have a job has taken on extra responsibilities for no extra money or more likely less money. It matters not whether the staff at Anglo were responsible for the bank busting or not. My god sure replace Anglo with Passport office and you get the same situation.



Your defending of them is a joke.

And if banks would hire people on the back of terrible references warning them otherwise then the banks have learned nothing.

I am not defending them, but am opposed to the usual posts on boards which is to blame everyone for the mess we are in but themselves without thinking about it.

My point about the other bankrupt companies is in relation to having a bad company name on your CV. Unless you were the cause of the company failing, potential recruiters will not hold it against you.

Also, there is a very big difference between Anglo and the Passport office (I hope).
The people in the passport office can be replaced and trained up in a short space of time. The people left in Anglo (well, those left after next week) should represent the cream of the company and the people who management most thing will help move Anglo back towards some sort of normal bank. I would expect that those who got the pay increases would be in demand from other banks and thus we need to pay them premium to keep them.

Of course, if the people who got the pay increases are just bean counters that can be replaced at the drop of the hat, then that is different, but I honestly don't think that would be happening now considering the changed management in the company.

Laminations

MaceFace wrote: »

My point about the other bankrupt companies is in relation to having a bad company name on your CV. Unless you were the cause of the company failing, potential recruiters will not hold it against you.

If the company is failing, whether it is your fault or not, and you are arrogant enough to demand pay rises or throw in the towel then you should get a terrible reference. No one is irreplaceable in this economy. Potential recruiters should hold that petulance against you.

MaceFace

Laminations wrote: »

If the company is failing, whether it is your fault or not, and you are arrogant enough to demand pay rises or throw in the towel then you should get a terrible reference. No one is irreplaceable in this economy. Potential recruiters should hold that petulance against you.

I said the following in a previous posting:

If Anglo tells them no, then they run a risk that you will move into your new role, stick your new title on your CV and start looking for a new job.

So, I don't think it is fair to say that the 70 people who got pay rises demanded them in any way or threatened to throw in the towel. Maybe they did, but considering we don't know this information, I find it unreasonable to blanket people like this without the facts.

Instead I look on at that these increases were offered by the company instead of demanded by the employees. The company offered them because it didn't want to run the risk that if it didn't, that these people would up sticks and move somewhere else where they would have got more money.

Remember, 99% of the people who have worked in Anglo are no different than you are me, and are no more to blame for the mess than any other person on the street.

RichieO

And of course fix a total F***up with yet another one...
Disbelief is constantly with me....

Liam Byrne

MaceFace wrote: »

Instead I look on at that these increases were offered by the company instead of demanded by the employees. The company offered them because it didn't want to run the risk that if it didn't, that these people would up sticks and move somewhere else where they would have got more money.

So Anglo hasn't changed then ? Still irresponsibly offering people money that it doesn't have ?

Laminations

MaceFace wrote: »

Instead I look on at that these increases were offered by the company instead of demanded by the employees. The company offered them because it didn't want to run the risk that if it didn't, that these people would up sticks and move somewhere else where they would have got more money.

The bank (i.e. government) dont have the money to offer. Tough luck.
Isn't that the line used on special needs kids and the blind?

If the bank offered the money in a pre-emptive manner because they suspected staff would leave that reflects badly on both the bank AND the staff. The staff, like the rest of us should realise there is no money and just pull up their socks and do the extra work, its expected of all of us.

Giving them money, infuriates the people taking cuts who are being told there is no money. Its a PR nightmare and wholly irresponsible

MaceFace

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So Anglo hasn't changed then ? Still irresponsibly offering people money that it doesn't have ?

I will agree with you if they did offer money to people where there was no need, but again, how does anyone here know that the was no need to offer this money?

Laminations wrote: »

The bank (i.e. government) dont have the money to offer. Tough luck.
Isn't that the line used on special needs kids and the blind?

If the bank offered the money in a pre-emptive manner because they suspected staff would leave that reflects badly on both the bank AND the staff. The staff, like the rest of us should realise there is no money and just pull up their socks and do the extra work, its expected of all of us.

Giving them money, infuriates the people taking cuts who are being told there is no money. Its a PR nightmare and wholly irresponsible

I agree it is infuriating to know a company is giving "pay increases" to employees, but again, if these people did leave and were to be replaced, can any of us say that the pay that would have to be offered would not be at this higher level?

And as for the employees turning down the money, that is just plain dreamland stuff. If anyone can show me someone who would turn down a pay increase, I will show you a liar.

People here are just so quick to jump to a conclusion without knowing all the facts, and that is my only motivation here.

Laminations

MaceFace wrote: »

I will agree with you if they did offer money to people where there was no need, but again, how does anyone here know that the was no need to offer this money?

I agree it is infuriating to know a company is giving "pay increases" to employees, but again, if these people did leave and were to be replaced, can any of us say that the pay that would have to be offered would not be at this higher level?

And as for the employees turning down the money, that is just plain dreamland stuff. If anyone can show me someone who would turn down a pay increase, I will show you a liar.

People here are just so quick to jump to a conclusion without knowing all the facts, and that is my only motivation here.

Never said they should turn down the increase.

The facts can only be one of two.

The banks gave increases that were not needed.
Conclusion? silly silly bank, we dont have the money, Dukes should be fired.

The bank gave money that was needed.
Conclusion? silly silly bank, we dont have the money, Dukes should be fired.

If the staff were going to walk without the pay rises, like I said, let them walk and rubbish their names as uncooperative lazy good for nothings.
If you have to hire new staff? you ask can any of us say that the pay that would have to be offered would not be at this higher level?

I can say that it wouldn't be of a higher level. Why?
Cos we dont have the money!

thebman

The employees would have to be thick to stay in the bank if they could get jobs elsewhere anyway.

Anglo has no future, its a zombie bank. Nobody has faith in that bank to look after their money, the public want the state to shut it down.

I wouldn't stay working there if I was an employee there if I could get work elsewhere. Politicians will sell it off or shut it down eventually and I don't know who would buy a bank with such a reputation for dodgy lending practices and bad management.

Laminations

Re: my idea to sell Anglo to the people

seems the Tories are touting an idea of a cheap sale of banks to the people.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=500059&in_page_id=2

So I'll ask again, why could we not privatise Anglo by Irish citizens buying shares in it and then let it fail??

ei.sdraob

Laminations wrote: »

So I'll ask again, why could we not privatise Anglo by Irish citizens buying shares in it and then let it fail??

just make sure you dont tell the people that last bit

Laminations

ei.sdraob wrote: »

just make sure you dont tell the people that last bit

I'd be up front with them. Do you want to lose 200 quid now (on top of the money we wasted already) or lose 3000 quid later?

People are very loss averse

MaceFace

Laminations wrote: »

I'd be up front with them. Do you want to lose 200 quid now (on top of the money we wasted already) or lose 3000 quid later?

People are very loss averse

How about they sell it to me for a fiver and then I will declare myself bankrupt.
The only condition is that I want 10 million quid in 11 years when they allow me to exit bankruptcy. There, I saved you 12.99 billion

Sell me the National debt of Ireland for another fiver and oh, those pesky SPV debts - I'll have those as well.

ei.sdraob

Laminations wrote: »

I'd be up front with them. Do you want to lose 200 quid now (on top of the money we wasted already) or lose 3000 quid later?

People are very loss averse

hmm I prefer its done in conjunction with tax relief idea I floated earlier

that would attract some big fishes who want to better manage their "taxes"

we as a country were doing that sort of carry on for quite some time now

woodseb

Laminations wrote: »

Re: my idea to sell Anglo to the people

seems the Tories are toutin an idea of a cheap sale of banks to the people.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=500059&in_page_id=2

So I'll ask again, why could we not privatise Anglo by Irish citizens buying shares in it and then let it fail??

that Tory plan is selling shares to the public that they already own in lloyds and rbs that are both listed public companies

there's no plan to collapse the banks after it - it has no relevance to your suggestion

back to your plan.......there would be numerous covenants and terms within the bonds that would make it impossible to carry out such a transaction just to avoid the debt. i would reckon it would break a number a company law issues aswell - if the government wanted to do it they'd be better off just repudiating the debts on anglo rather than such an obvious ruse

Laminations

woodseb wrote: »

that Tory plan is selling shares to the public that they already own in lloyds and rbs that are both listed public companies

there's no plan to collapse the banks after it - it has no relevance to your suggestion

back to your plan.......there would be numerous covenants and terms within the bonds that would make it impossible to carry out such a transaction just to avoid the debt. i would reckon it would break a number a company law issues aswell - if the government wanted to do it they'd be better off just repudiating the debts on anglo rather than such an obvious ruse

These were not government debts to repudiate in the first place!
Isn't nationalisation in the first place an obvious ruse? Isn't NAMA an obvious ruse?
I'm sure capitalism underlies anything that would prevent us from floating a failed bank - nobody would buy it, it wouldn't make sense, I dont think there would be rules necessarily in place to stop a transfer like this.

Karl Whelan wrote:

A nationalised bank isn’t “gone”—the banks will still be there, customers won’t notice a difference and even the famous “sign on the door” won’t change. And taking the bank off the stock market doesn’t in any way leave the state without an exit mechanism. Companies come on, and are taken off, the stock market all the time.
The Irish government already has experience of floating large state companies on the stock market in IPOs (Eircom, Aer Lingus) and our fiscal problems may well require them to repeat this process with a number of other state businesses.

Last year Anglo was valued at about 500 million. Thats a little over 100 quid a head. Now if there are laws about refloating a bank I'd like to hear them.



It would be saying to the bond holders, we tried to give you a hand out, sorry it didn't work, you shouldn't have gambled with a terrible bank. You were happy to take the large returns, now you take the losses.

Alan Dukes wrote:

Mr Dukes, who will take over as chairman when Donal O’Connor steps down later this year, said it would be more rational to allow the bank to develop as a more viable entity that could be floated in the future with a potential net benefit to the taxpayer than the “unthinking, close-it-down attitude”.

So what criteria need to be reached before it can be refloated? It seems the only criteria are to make it appeal to the market. We can twist the arm of the Irish tax payer to make it appeal to them right now

woodseb

Laminations wrote: »

Last year Anglo was valued at about 500 million. Thats a little over 100 quid a head. Now if there are laws about refloating a bank I'd like to hear them.

i'm not sure what you are looking for in terms of 'laws about refloating a bank' - can you clarify

where did you get the valuation of 500mln btw, that seems massively optimistic considering the current value of the 'healthier' AIB and BOI

IrishTonyO

Alan Dukes and Joan Burton to debate wheter to keep Anglo afloat or shut it down on Prime Time RTE1 after the news

Stabshauptmann

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yeh

since the State now owes the bank, the state can offer adding selling points now to a sale of this bank, such as tax concessions and land/property

No, it cant. The state is bound by numerous, complex competition regulations.

ei.sdraob

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

No, it cant. The state is bound by numerous, complex competition regulations.

yes just like Greece