Anglo to put €700m into Quinn

patnor1011

jimmysull wrote: »

Yes to Jersey or Bermuda. That means more dole payments, less tax etc. That means an even tougher budget next December. Your point?

Point is that instead of pouring another billions to insolvent insurance company throught insolvent bank state can afford to use this money to keep those people on dole for long time. Or invest them to create new jobs or lure more manufacturers or investment here. Sean did gamble and lose. Why on earth we have to save his empire?

patnor1011

To quote markpb : Most companies would collapse if their loans were called in ahead of schedule.

Why not quinn? What is so different why to save him and not thousands other bussiness who went to wall in last few years?

jimmysull

patnor1011 wrote: »

Point is that instead of pouring another billions to insolvent insurance company through insolvent bank state can afford to use this money to keep those people on dole for long time. Or invest them to create new jobs or lure more manufacturers or investment here. Sean did gamble and lose. Why on earth we have to save his empire?

We have already ascertained that Quinn Insurance is not insolvent. It does not have the surplus solvency required by the Financial Regulator. There is a difference

K-9

jimmysull wrote: »

We have already ascertained that Quinn Insurance is not insolvent. It does not have the surplus solvency required by the Financial Regulator. There is a difference

I'm not sure if that is the case, debts where not disclosed previously apparently, so that may have affected that.

Seán Quinn's risky business

The Regulator seems more worried about the way the company has been run in the last few years, more than anything.

jmayo

markpb wrote: »

Do you know of any redundancies in the Quinn Group? Have you seen it on the news, read it on the papers? No. There hasn't been any. Hours were reduced, unpaid leave was taken but no-one was made unemployed. The unprofitable arms of the Group are being subsidised by the profitable arms including QI.

That is the problem FFS.
He is tying in loans to other group companies to the assets of the insurance company.

Do you not get that ?
If those companies go then the insurance company's reserves are put at serious risk.

Also some of the assets of the insurance company is property related, meaning their assets are decreasing in value every single day.
Keep taking out the profits of the insurance company to keep the cement factory afloat rather than put the money aside to compensate for the decreasing property related assets and you are endanegring the insurance company.

markpb wrote: »

What exactly is your point? Lots of companies have large loans. As long as they continue to pay interest and repay the capital at an agreed rate, there's no problem. Most companies would collapse if their loans were called in ahead of schedule.

Yes the Zoe group was all well and healthy, just so long as their bankers didn't come a calling.
Then watch what happened when one of the bankers did start looking for their repayments.
The big thing here is that some of these outstanding loans are owed by the quinn family, not the actual companies but becuase they own the companies they used them as security.

markpb wrote: »

You don't think the two are related? If he loses his money, they lose their jobs. So far, Quinn has done a lot to keep his employees in work. It might have been cheaper to shut down unprofitable companies and make them unemployed but he never did that. You can accuse him of greed if you'd like but you can't argue with that point.

So shoudl we just let him carry on, tie some of those unprofitable enterprises into the insurance arm, and possibly bring it crashing down.
Then not alone do lots of people lose their jobs, insurance policy holders could be left high and dry, with the taxpayer having to come in to rescue their policies.
Ever heard of PMPA ?
How long were we paying a levy on insurance to pay back for it's rescue because it's owner decided he like banking ?

markpb wrote: »

What specific cost has Quinn had on taxpayers so far? Not a rant please, not future predictions, just name one thing.

Well lets see.
Did his little deal with Anglo CFDs not result in Anglo having to give a loan to some well heeled connected developers to buy those CFDs ?
Now those loans were partially secured by the actual shares of the bank.
Now AFAIK some of these loans have been written off meaning us the taxpayers had to cough up even more moeny in recapitalisation for the bank.
Now to me that is quinn costing me and other taxpayers money.

quinn, his family and companies owe 2.8 billion ot Anglo, the bank that WE now own.
If any of these loans are written off then that costs me and all the other taxpayers money.

markpb wrote: »

You have some good, irrefutable points on this thread but you come across as if you're foaming at the mouth. Yes he made serious mistakes, yes he needs to be punished again for making those but extracting the insurance company and causing the collapse of the unprofitable companies and the loss of thousands of jobs is not what anyone should want. If he is happy to cross-subsidise his companies and keep people in work while still managing to achieve the required solvency rations, that is exactly the outcome we should be looking for. Not making thousands of people unemployed because of your rabid hated for the man and his mistakes.

He just don't get it do you ?

An insurance company much like a bank has to keep reserves, when it doesn't you are sailing close to the wind, one run of claims can have serious reprecussions leading to failure.

If it does fail then customers can be seriously affected and because of it's size the government has to step in to protect the customers with guess what, taxpayers money.

ICI failed in 1985 because the eejit running the London office took some big risks and made some big unlucky decisions.
AFAIK he had insured a lot of telephone polls in NSW/Victoria in Australia that all burned down in a bush fire.
They were under reserved and went bust loosing over £200 million which ended up costing us nearly £400 million.

patnor1011

jimmysull wrote: »

We have already ascertained that Quinn Insurance is not insolvent. It does not have the surplus solvency required by the Financial Regulator. There is a difference

No. Quinn Insurance is insolvent becouse they do not meet solvency criteria required by Financial Regulator.

soden12

Quinn is yet another example of the cosy deals between the banks and their buddies.

Will it ever end ? Will we ever be at a stage where the banks will be told - despite your so-called experts you made the loss so deal with it ?

Why are Quinn and his ilk so anti-government, so anti risk equalisation but then when things get bad they want us to bail them out ?

The Green

After the investigations are concluded into Anglo's past, could Sean Quinn take action regarding losses against them and subsequently their owners i.e the state regarding false accounting or what ever else is discovered. Now that Anglo has been refinanced through NAMA there will be plenty in the pot.

jimmysull

patnor1011 wrote: »

No. Quinn Insurance is insolvent becouse they do not meet solvency criteria required by Financial Regulator.

Definition of Insolvency is the inability to pay one's debts as they fall due.

The surplus solvency required by the regulator is a different matter and (quite rightly) applies only to insurance companies to cover unforeseen 'worst case scenarios'.

Quinn Insurance is not insolvent but it does not have the surplus solvency required by the Financial Regulator.