AIB set to announce mortgage rates up by .5%

amacca

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Fail part one - there was no significant regulation because the government oversee the regulators. (Or perhaps you consider them the grandparents?)

Getting off topic but I feel I have to defend myself


fair enough to an extent I suppose, regulators themselves answer to a higher power . . but .. their job description is surely to ensure that banks operate responsibly...they didn't, in this respect I consider them to be quite like parents not carrying out their duties properly

banks need regulators because we know they cannot be trusted to behave responsibly -- not behaving responsibly is a trait common to many young children (banks have different motivating factors for their behavior sure but it still amounts to irresponsibility)

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Fail part two - this attempts to exonerate adult men (and one woman) being paid millions of quid a year (plus whatever they grabbed in bonuses and dodgy loans) from their behaviour.
They weren't children, they were gamblers and crooks. They weren't unaware of their actions, they knew exactly what they were doing.

I'm afraid this one is a FAIL on your part....

banks are not men and one woman (I presume you mean gillian bowler?), as I mentioned in the post they are organisations......

I fully believe in consequences for irresponsible/criminal behavior for individuals (as I thought was abundantly clear from my post)

in no way does comparing the behavior of banks to children exonerate their directors (or even them) from bad behaviour....


it just enforces the point that they need to be monitored and controlled

if a society expected a bank to behave perfectly...why appoint a regulator..they are there to ensure the banks don't step out of line....they failed to do this

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Fail part three - relying on google and RHL School's website to tell you what a metaphor is.
A metaphor is an analogy which connotes a semantic meaning by way of comparison.

O.K.

I was relying on the good auld interweb to define a metaphor as I was currently logged on and I wanted to be accurate before refuting your post, how is that a failure?....I dont obviously trust everything I read on the web but If I break down your definition of a metaphor it seems pretty close to mine

eg: the interweb says that an analogy can be described as

"drawing a comparison in order to show similarity in some respect"

it also says that connotes is

"express or state indirectly"

while semantic relates to meaning



so I say a metaphor is "a comparison that shows how two things that are not alike in most ways can be similar in some"

and you say its a its a comparison which shows similarity in some respect expressed or stated indirectly....

tomato tomatoe surely...

and if in your opinion thats not what you said then please tell me specifically where the definitions of analogy or connotes are incorrect above and please try to be succinct - if you are correct you shouldn't need to dress it up.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Your comparison is sh!t, because none of it maps across from the one concept to the other

none of it maps across....

which bits don't map across,

the bit about the banks behaving irresponsibly......like irresponsible children

or the bit about the regulators behaving like irresponsible parents and not regulating kids properly

I think it maps quite well.....while not being similar in every respect.....a bit like oh an analogy

hope you havent been spending too much time reading about signs and signifiers in the latest issue of semiotics monthly...those lecturship positions in DCU school of communications are like hens teeth these days!

Cavehill Red

amacca wrote: »

Getting off topic but I feel I have to defend myself


fair enough to an extent I suppose, regulators themselves answer to a higher power . . but .. their job description is surely to ensure that banks operate responsibly...they didn't, in this respect I consider them to be quite like parents not carrying out their duties properly

banks need regulators because we know they cannot be trusted to behave responsibly -- not behaving responsibly is a trait common to many young children (banks have different motivating factors for their behavior sure but it still amounts to irresponsibility)

Banks don't need regulators. They need regulation. That was the responsibility of the government, which instead (advised by vested interests and influenced by laissez-faire regulatory regimes elsewhere) enforced nothing to hinder the dodgy banking practices and rather, actively encouraged them.

amacca wrote: »

I'm afraid this one is a FAIL on your part....

banks are not men and one woman (I presume you mean gillian bowler?), as I mentioned in the post they are organisations......

I fully believe in consequences for irresponsible/criminal behavior for individuals (as I thought was abundantly clear from my post)

in no way does comparing the behavior of banks to children exonerate their directors (or even them) from bad behaviour....

Banks are institutions, yes. Their policies were guided and controlled by very small numbers of people. To suggest that the IT guy or the counter staff had anything to do with setting policy is disingenuous.
And attempting to depict the deliberate policies of those bank board members and top echelon staff as akin to the unknowing behaviour of children IS an attempt to exonerate them from responsibility for their actions.

amacca wrote: »

it just enforces the point that they need to be monitored and controlled

if a society expected a bank to behave perfectly...why appoint a regulator..they are there to ensure the banks don't step out of line....they failed to do this

Because everyone else had one. But it wasn't intended that they do anything, anymore than regulators were expected to intervene in Greenspan's free-for-all in the US. Irish policy mimicked that of other states, down to having regulators but no enforced regulation. More Bertienomics in action.

amacca wrote: »

O.K.

I was relying on the good auld interweb to define a metaphor as I was currently logged on and I wanted to be accurate before refuting your post, how is that a failure?....I dont obviously trust everything I read on the web but If I break down your definition of a metaphor it seems pretty close to mine

eg: the interweb says that an analogy can be described as

"drawing a comparison in order to show similarity in some respect"

it also says that connotes is

"express or state indirectly"

while semantic relates to meaning



so I say a metaphor is "a comparison that shows how two things that are not alike in most ways can be similar in some"

and you say its a its a comparison which shows similarity in some respect expressed or stated indirectly....

tomato tomatoe surely...

Except tomato is correct, and tomatoe is wrong. Sorry.

amacca wrote: »

and if in your opinion thats not what you said then please tell me specifically where the definitions of analogy or connotes are incorrect above and please try to be succinct - if you are correct you shouldn't need to dress it up.

I have done so twice already - your analogy doesn't work because depicting the banks and those in charge of them as behaving like children exonerates adults who were considered experts in their fields as being not responsible for their actions. Clearly, they knew exactly what they were doing. They simply gambled and failed.

amacca wrote: »

none of it maps across....

which bits don't map across,

the bit about the banks behaving irresponsibly......like irresponsible children

Exactly. That doesn't map. Because it wasn't simply irresponsible. It was deliberately reckless, greedy, self-serving and probably criminal (though we'll never know because there is no appetite in government to see any white collar criminals prosecuted, never mind jailed.)

amacca wrote: »

or the bit about the regulators behaving like irresponsible parents and not regulating kids properly

A better analogy is a dog on a leash being unable to attack. Or a toothless lion. The regulator was not irresponsible. They were shackled, and operating in a climate were to intervene was actively discouraged by their OWN higher authority - government.

amacca wrote: »

I think it maps quite well.....while not being similar in every respect.....a bit like oh an analogy

hope you havent been spending too much time reading about signs and signifiers in the latest issue of semiotics monthly...those lecturship positions in DCU school of communications are like hens teeth these days!

Signs and signifiers? How very Seventies of you.

amacca

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Banks don't need regulators. They need regulation.

wow! and would that regulation be carried out by regulators perhaps? maybe not good ones but individuals one could call regulators at a fondue party (to continue that seventies theme)

If banks need regulation as you suggest then I put it to you that they naturally also then need regulators and there is nothing incorrect about my comment.......... or is this going to turn into a circular which came first the regulation or the regulator type argument?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

That was the responsibility of the government, which instead (advised by vested interests and influenced by laissez-faire regulatory regimes elsewhere) enforced nothing to hinder the dodgy banking practices and rather, actively encouraged them.

indeed, no argument here......this is my opinion too, our elected representatives are at fault as was (at least I thought) made abundantly clear in my initial post.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Banks are institutions, yes. Their policies were guided and controlled by very small numbers of people. To suggest that the IT guy or the counter staff had anything to do with setting policy is disingenuous.
And attempting to depict the deliberate policies of those bank board members and top echelon staff as akin to the unknowing behaviour of children IS an attempt to exonerate them from responsibility for their actions.

But I'm not suggesting the IT guy or the counter staff are responsible for the policy...nor have I at any point.....what I am suggesting with the analogy is that the organization as a whole will behave irresponsibly due to the pressure to grab more market share, increase share price, make more profits for shareholder (short term in the case of our banks) and natural desire of top echelon staff to feather their own nests.

I'm suggesting that this singular drive for profits if left unchecked will result in trouble .....much like leaving immature kids to their own devices.

comparing banks to immature children does not exonerate top echelon staff for their failed policies or personal responsibility...that's taking the analogy too far or just retyping the same thing because you personally believe it to be true despite what anyone else says or indeed what was made clear from their initial post....

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Because everyone else had one. But it wasn't intended that they do anything, anymore than regulators were expected to intervene in Greenspan's free-for-all in the US. Irish policy mimicked that of other states, down to having regulators but no enforced regulation. More Bertienomics in action.

go back a bit further than greenspan...keep going on past the seventies .....my point is still very valid...just because their initial purpose was/is subverted does not mean they were not intended to control reckless behaviour by financial institutions...and that does mean that banks(organizations not individuals) are not expected to behave responsibly unless they are being overseen.....like children

regulators were intended to regulate....they've been gradually muzzled but they were there to regulate initially which means that banks were not trusted to operate responsibly without being overseen

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Except tomato is correct, and tomatoe is wrong. Sorry.

O.k. but that's still avoiding my question of how your definition of a metaphor, see below

"A metaphor is an analogy which connotes a semantic meaning by way of comparison"

is substantially different from mine, see below

"a comparison that shows how two things that are not alike in most ways can be similar in some"


you rubbished my internet sourced definition of metaphor in favour of your own more wordy definition and claim this to be a fail on my part, yet the seem to be essentially the same definition as I broken down in my previous post

how do you arrive at fail part three given that youre attempted obfuscation by means of a smattering of semantics yielded pretty much the same definition as my own.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I have done so twice already - your analogy doesn't work because depicting the banks and those in charge of them as behaving like children exonerates adults who were considered experts in their fields as being not responsible for their actions. Clearly, they knew exactly what they were doing. They simply gambled and failed.

once again.... it doesn't exonerate adults in positions of responsibilty within those organizations......im saying the organization as a whole behaves this way because of the environment it operates in....light touch regulation = organization behaving irresponsibly be it a bank or multinational pharmaceuticals company....that doesn't in anyway mean that the director that oversees billions in reckless lending or the director that gets the results of a set of clinical trials doctored are not responsible for their actions whether you say it twice or any number of times

what it does do is show how individuals in positions of responsibility within organizations need to be made responsible for their actions (through applying consequences) if society wishes the organization as a whole to behave responsibly.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Exactly. That doesn't map. Because it wasn't simply irresponsible. It was deliberately reckless, greedy, self-serving and probably criminal (though we'll never know because there is no appetite in government to see any white collar criminals prosecuted, never mind jailed.)

but being deliberately reckless is irresponsible

being greedy is irresponsible

being totally self serving is irresponsible

being criminal is irresponsible

EPIC FAIL

Rewording what Ive posted doesn't mean the post was incorrect.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

A better analogy is a dog on a leash being unable to attack. Or a toothless lion. The regulator was not irresponsible. They were shackled, and operating in a climate were to intervene was actively discouraged by their OWN higher authority - government.

true .....its hard to blame a regulator for not doing what they should when the government would in all probability not have given them any backing if they had done their job properly, perhaps was actively discouraging them from doing so....a better analogy for the regulators perhaps but it doesn't mean my analogy doesn't work for the situation as a whole.....an analogy doesn't have to mirror every last detail...certainly not worthy of a FAIl given how flimsily you've defended that statement so far.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Signs and signifiers? How very Seventies of you.

Yes well my flares need ironing so I'm off now.

The_Conductor

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Banks don't need regulators. They need regulation. That was the responsibility of the government, which instead (advised by vested interests and influenced by laissez-faire regulatory regimes elsewhere) enforced nothing to hinder the dodgy banking practices and rather, actively encouraged them.

Banks most certainly need both regulators and regulations. You can have bewildering arrays of regulations covering every possible eventuality- however if you do not have a regulator willing to implement the regulations- they are totally worthless. We had a situation of 'light regulation'- where the condensed regulations were not enforced by the regulator- leaving financial institutions to their own devices. In an industry which is for all intents and purposes, not being regulated- where a competitor is allowed to change the rulebook to the detriment of the other market participants, it really is a case of change their business models- or go the way of the dodo......

The government were given good advice by both external advisors (think of Peter Bacon's several reports) alongside the ESRI and civil servants- they choose to ignore advice that they considered would kill their golden goose. Anyone who suggested the property bubble was unsustainable- was suddenly persona non gratia.......

AIB- certainly should have been a more prudent operator than the other institutions (esp. as they had to be rescued by the government on a previous occasion)- they would have been finished as a financial institution had they not lined up with the other institutions and followed suit. Yes- it was stupidity- however, the bigger stupidity was a lack of willingness by the government to do anything that might rock the boat- that ultimately tipped the scale the other direction........

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Banks are institutions, yes. Their policies were guided and controlled by very small numbers of people. To suggest that the IT guy or the counter staff had anything to do with setting policy is disingenuous.
And attempting to depict the deliberate policies of those bank board members and top echelon staff as akin to the unknowing behaviour of children IS an attempt to exonerate them from responsibility for their actions.

Banks lending policies were guided and controlled by the market in which they operated. This was an unregulated market. Some competitors introduced products and practices that gave them advantages over other market operators. You either aped these policies, alongside coming up with your own, or you threw in the towel. Shareholders demanded returns similar to competitors- or else heads on blocks. Anglo Irish was turning out profits of over 2 billion at the peak- totally unreal, given it was only ever supposed to be a niche bank.......

I am not trying to excuse the behaviour of the banks- which was both misguided and inexcusably lax- simply put it into context- that this is the environment they were operating in- one which was not regulated, and one with shrill shareholders who demanded ever increasing profits, alongside the government who demanded ever increasing property related income flow........ Woe betide anyone who was going to spoil the party.......

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Because everyone else had one. But it wasn't intended that they do anything, anymore than regulators were expected to intervene in Greenspan's free-for-all in the US. Irish policy mimicked that of other states, down to having regulators but no enforced regulation. More Bertienomics in action.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Except tomato is correct, and tomatoe is wrong. Sorry.

We are being pedantic.......

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I have done so twice already - your analogy doesn't work because depicting the banks and those in charge of them as behaving like children exonerates adults who were considered experts in their fields as being not responsible for their actions. Clearly, they knew exactly what they were doing. They simply gambled and failed.

Certainly banks gambled and failed. However- even casinos have house rules which are rigidly enforced........ We had house rules- but we didn't even pay lipservice to them....... Why do you think the government got addicted to external consultants- because they didn't like what they heard from their civil servants, the ESRI and commentators such as Peter Bacon.........

Bankers are not children- but they do need a defined environment in which to operate- Ireland was like the wild wild west, where anything goes......

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Exactly. That doesn't map. Because it wasn't simply irresponsible. It was deliberately reckless, greedy, self-serving and probably criminal (though we'll never know because there is no appetite in government to see any white collar criminals prosecuted, never mind jailed.)

Certainly there was criminality- esp in the case of certain noted individuals, and some off the book deals, such as artificially inflating assets without disclosure to shareholders. What is the point in labouring this though? We could have another decade of tribunals- but who would gain? No-one but the lawyers......... Do we really want to go down that road?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

A better analogy is a dog on a leash being unable to attack. Or a toothless lion. The regulator was not irresponsible. They were shackled, and operating in a climate were to intervene was actively discouraged by their OWN higher authority - government.

The regulator by his own admission- operated a 'light touch'. There was some sort of implicit understanding that a nudge and a wink was sufficient to keep people on the straight and narrow. This was a ridiculous approach- and has sank numerous banks- both foreign and national, that decided to domicile themselves here. I don't really know why you don't accept a degree of irresponsibility on the part of the regulator? If you wanted to argue this point- you could point out that the manner in which areas of responsibility were parcelled out between the regulator and the central bank, left too many vague areas where no-one knew who was in charge- but even this is making excuses for the regulator.........

Banks operated in a wild west environment- where they aped the actions of their competitors, while trying to introduce their own competitive advantages, or they got the hell out of the market....... Towards the end, and more recently- some did indeed get the hell out of the market.......

Its nice to think of burning effegies of bankers and having a symbol that we can attack to blame for the woes we are now in. Its not as simple as that though- we all called for lower personal taxes, we all wanted that '00' car- hell even social welfare recipients thought it their right to have a few holidays a year in Spain (see the State Benefits thread for some really bizarre expectations).

Government became addicted to 'partnership' agreements- where they shovelled unbelievable sums of money at council boards, charities, organisations, quangoes and literally anyone who came to them with a half baked idea. No-one tried to stop them. We have no mechanism to impeach our politicians- though to be fair- its the entire political situation that needs overhaul, not simply the current shower of incumbents shown the door. Do you really imagine Fine Gael and Labour would do any different than the FF shysters? I don't........

We all lost the run of ourselves. We were somehow 'special'. The norms that define economic boom and busts- somehow didn't apply to us. If you go back to the late 70s and the boom and bust in agricultural land- you could very easily recycle the rhetoric- we really do seem to be incapable of learning........

Cookie_Monster

When were trackers first issued?

I find it very hard to believe that only 10% are variable, have trackers not only been around for a reasonably short amount of time, like late 90's on?

The_Conductor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

When were trackers first issued?

I find it very hard to believe that only 10% are variable, have trackers not only been around for a reasonably short amount of time, like late 90's on?

Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) introduced tracker mortgages to Ireland in 1999, limiting it to those with an LTV of less than 60%. Irish lenders followed suit, and it was one hell of a slipery slope......

D3PO

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

When were trackers first issued?

I find it very hard to believe that only 10% are variable, have trackers not only been around for a reasonably short amount of time, like late 90's on?

its due to impact 60,000 people apparantly. Does AIB have 600,000 mortgages on their loan book ? 10% sounds about right to me although you would imagine it should be more.

D3PO

bobbysands81 wrote: »

So the bank are bleeding the 10% dry to make up for losses from the other 90%, .

banks are making money on the Fixed rates. Fixed rates are also due to increase for anybody locking into one. So its not that 10% are being targeted.

At the same time you can lock into a fixed rate before 4pm today. You have a choice to make, but if you decide to stay on your SVR you cant then come on and complain about those who have taken up other deals.

The_Conductor

D3PO wrote: »

banks are making money on the Fixed rates. Fixed rates are also due to increase for anybody locking into one. So its not that 10% are being targeted.

At the same time you can lock into a fixed rate before 4pm today. You have a choice to make, but if you decide to stay on your SVR you cant then come on and complain about those who have taken up other deals.

Looking at yesterday's figures- I'm not sure they are making money even on fixed rates. Their rates are even now- well over 1.25% below retail levels in other EU countries, and their SVRs are almost 2% below the interbank lending rates. This is why Irish banks have the highest reliance on ECB wholesale lending, of all countries in the Eurozone (incl. Greece).

Irish banks are on life support- both Irish and also ECB support. Irish consumers are used to incredibly low price credit. Its an addiction we need to accept we can no longer allow to continue.