300 Trucks expected in Dublin city center protest supporting Quinn Insurance.

dcr22B

bauderline wrote: »

BTW - The renowned investor Warren Buffet also got burned on Anglo... even the best of them got sucked in by the BS !

Good for him, that doesn't mean you go around flouting industry rules and expect to get away with it. Get your head out of the sand, in any walk of life, you don't play by the rules you may end up getting punished in the end.

Jip

bauderline wrote: »

I really don't understand why this FR has so much support... he has achieved nothing positive here... quite the opposite... he has done serious damage to a viable and profitable business and placed thousands of jobs at risk... these are not the actions of a competent individual, his handling of the entire affair is a complete disgrace.

I sense the begrudging lynch mob at work here, personal feelings about Sean Quinn must be set aside and a balanced view of the situation taken.

That's simply hilarious, you're railing against the FR being incompetent and a disgrace while trying to defend Quinn in the same post ? It's always nice to start lunch with a good laugh.

Cookie_Monster

dcr22B wrote: »

Hardly the regulator's fault or responsibility.

If Mr Quinn hadn't fluted around with his money etc etc, they wouldn't be in this position. There is only one person to blame for this unfortunately.

not so, there is a whole boardroom full of people to blame.

Wudyaquit

dcr22B wrote: »

Hardly the regulator's fault or responsibility.

If Mr Quinn hadn't fluted around with his money etc etc, they wouldn't be in this position. There is only one person to blame for this unfortunately.

Perhaps so, and he's accepted responsibility for that mistake, but the regulator's limited view of the situation isn't helping.
He's not overly concerned if an Irish company goes to the wall to the benefit of his colleagues in the UK insurance industry who've wanted him out for years - quite the opposite.
He's taken a month to agree to open 10% of the market, despite the administrators being able to see it was profitable weeks earlier. This is massive - we can talk about Sean Quinn's mistakes, but this lethargy has cost tens of millions in profits and undoubtedly has cost at least some jobs already.

These delays are exacerbating a difficult situation that you will have to pay for in the long run if the company fails through the defaulted anglo debt and increased social welfare payments.

Joey the lips

It amazes me to see that people believe the regulator is at fault here. If you ask me this regualtor is bang on and if the regulator was lapse and quinn brought us all down we would be having a different discussion

as in "why was the regualator not awake.

SeanW

bauderline wrote: »

I really don't understand why this FR has so much support... he has achieved nothing positive here... quite the opposite... he has done serious damage to a viable and profitable business and placed thousands of jobs at risk... these are not the actions of a competent individual, his handling of the entire affair is a complete disgrace.

I sense the begrudging lynch mob at work here, personal feelings about Sean Quinn must be set aside and a balanced view of the situation taken.

BTW - The renowned investor Warren Buffet also got burned on Anglo... even the best of them got sucked in by the BS !

Let's go through this one more time.

Sean Quinn ran the Quinn Group. Sean Quinn lost money that the insurance arm needed to maintain the ability to pay out insurance claims. i.e. Quinn Insurance is legally insolvent and that's not the regulators fault, he's just trying to clean up the mess before someone needs Quinn Insurance to pay for something and the money isn't there.

dcr22B

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

not so, there is a whole boardroom full of people to blame.

You know what I mean

Random

(posting to subscribe on mobile theme)

JHMEG

GM071class wrote: »

What they, and alot of people, seem to forget is that IF A COMPANY CAN'T SUPPORT ITSELF, IT SHOULD BE CLOSED!!

€20 million profit a month -- it's well able to support itself. It doesn't meet the Irish Financial Regulator's solvency rules which are particularly (overly?) stringent, but it does meet European Union solvency rules.

Cookie_Monster wrote:

in the last 5 years they have been cheaper by 100 quid once

They saved you 100 quid, and yet you seem to have some sort of loathing for them because they didn't save you more.

Quinn Insurance have 20% of the market, and are the 2nd biggest insurer in Ireland.

Cookie_Monster

JHMEG wrote: »

€20 million profit a month -- it's well able to support itself. It doesn't meet the Irish Financial Regulator's solvency rules which are particularly (overly?) stringent, but it does meet European Union solvency rules.


They saved you 100 quid, and yet you seem to have some sort of loathing for them because they didn't save you more.

Quinn Insurance have 20% of the market, and are the 2nd biggest insurer in Ireland.

my anger is based on the fact that we've all just found out they've been taking the piss with peoples money, acted illegally and put thousands of jobs at risk unnecessarily. nothing to do with the fact I saved or didn't save a few quid

Jip

Just saw a couple of these clowns being interviewed on the News at 1, clowns is putting it mildly, they had some class quotes along the lines of leave Sean alone and let him sort it out himself. Idiots.

Wudyaquit

Joey the lips wrote: »

It amazes me to see that people believe the regulator is at fault here. If you ask me this regualtor is bang on and if the regulator was lapse and quinn brought us all down we would be having a different discussion

Are you saying you think the regulator is bang on in not allowing the company trade (profitably) in the UK??
Fine to blame Quinn all you want, but to blindly agree with everything Elderfield is doing is just as shortsighted.

dowlingm

Failure of a major Irish insurer is not unprecedented.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/taxpayers-have-paid-83641bn-on-insurance-stealth-tax-1216777.html

gjim

JHMEG wrote: »

€20 million profit a month -- it's well able to support itself. It doesn't meet the Irish Financial Regulator's solvency rules which are particularly (overly?) stringent, but it does meet European Union solvency rules.

You are really trying my patience here.

This is the 2nd time you've thrown out this 20 million figure while completely ignoring the MAJOR issues which more than justify the FR's actions:

a) Quinn's previous mismanagement of the insurance company's reserves - using it as a personal piggy bank COMPLETELY in contravention of insurance company regulations.

b) the recent disclosure that he has used his control over the insurance company to issue loan guarantees for a bunch of his other ventures including speculative property plays COMPLETELY in contravention of insurance company regulations.

AND c) THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL - QUINN INSURANCE IS NOT, FROM AN ACTUARIAL POINT OF VIEW, IN A POSITION TO COVER THE EXPECTED CLAIMS ON THE POLICIES HE HAS SOLD.

How difficult is this to understand? But no - according to you and a host of gombeen balloonheads - the FR should let him continue to sell policies - sure who cares if he can't cover the claims? He's creating jobs isn't he?

Well so did B. Madoff; I expect you think was a sound man - sure didn't lots of people get good returns from their investments (at the start at least) and he employed people? Or you'd have no problem with the lottery selling millions worth of tickets but running off with the "profits" and never actually holding a draw.

Here's a clue for you; the insurance business isn't like selling bathroom tiles. The 20 million you are so fond of quoting DOES NOT belong to Quinn - it represents peoples' policy payments and most of it is supposed to be put aside INTO a reserve fund to cover future claims.

Unless you address at least point c) above and preferably points a) and b) (which prove the man cannot be trusted to manage an insurance company), then everything else you say is pointless.

JHMEG

That's quite the condescending post. I'm assuming your a school teacher in real life.

a) True, but water under the bridge.
b) True, but water under the bridge.
c) I feel like using a patronising tone, but I won't stoop to your level. You are incorrect. The solvency ratio is to cover a worst case scenario, where nearly all policy holders make a claim at the same time. Winning the lotto is more likely to happen. That ratio is 150%. Quinn is €100m short of 150%.

Quinn Insurance is extremely profitable and made €18m profit in March. That's profit, not the value of policies sold. You seem to be mistaking the two.

gjim wrote:

according to you and a host of gombeen balloonheads - the FR should let him continue to sell policies

The FR seems to agree. Maybe he's a balloonhead too? He has let Quinn continue to sell policies.

Cookie_Monster

JHMEG wrote: »

That's quite the condescending post. I'm assuming your a school teacher in real life.

so are a lot of yours!

JHMEG wrote: »

a) True, but water under the bridge.
b) True, but water under the bridge.

you can't just right that off like it never happened, that at the centre of whats wrong with this country and is dodgy to say the least. There is nothing about either of those two that are good for the shareholder and the whole situation has an air of corruption and fraud.

JHMEG wrote: »

c) I feel like using a patronising tone, but I won't stoop to your level. You are incorrect. The solvency ratio is to cover a worst case scenario, where nearly all policy holders make a claim at the same time. Winning the lotto is more likely to happen. That ratio is 150%. Quinn is €100m short of 150%.

Quinn Insurance is extremely profitable and made €18m profit in March. That's profit, not the value of policies sold. You seem to be mistaking the two.

rules are rules, you can't just ignore the ones you don't like. that the reason all the banks are ****ed as well. should we all just ignore the rules and laws we think are a bit inconvenient?

Those solvency ratios are there to cover event like the recent flooding, do you think the €200 house insurance policy money is going to cover the €20,000 for cleaning, repairing, rebuilding a flooded house and it content. multiply that by 2000 policies and suddenly a massive chunk or reserves is gone regardless of that rule. this is why its required to have such high reserves.

JHMEG wrote: »

The FR seems to agree.He has not stopped Quinn from selling policies.

:rolleyes:
Yes he has, they've been severely limited in the UK.

Have you actually got a clue whats going on here?

JHMEG

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you can't just right that off like it never happened,

Sean Quinn should probably be in prison for what he did, no doubt.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Those solvency ratios are there to cover event like the recent flooding,

Did the recent flooding cause Quinn any difficulty? No. Do you think you're being a bit simple about this?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Yes he has, they've been severely limited in the UK.

Pedantic. For you I should have said "The FR has no completely stopped Quinn from selling policies, so he must be a balloonhead".

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Have you actually got a clue whats going on here?

Do you?

paulm17781

Trucks.

Cookie_Monster

JHMEG wrote: »

Did the recent flooding cause Quinn any difficulty? No. Do you think you're being a bit simple about this?

No I'm not being simple, just using an example. And how do you know if they are in difficulty because of this or not. Have you access to their accounts, you can't know otherwise. Its events like the flooding that those reserve HAVE to be in place for.

JHMEG wrote: »

Pedantic.

So it's pedantic for me to correct you when you say something that is 100% wrong...


And the only reason Quinn is selling any policies is because the administrators have allowed them to, nothing else.

JHMEG

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

No I'm not being simple, just using an example. And how do you know if they are in difficulty because of this or not. Have you access to their accounts, you can't know otherwise. Its events like the flooding that those reserve HAVE to be in place for.

The Administrator, as appointed by the Regulator, has access to the accounts. The company is in Administration to avoid putting it into Liquidation, as its longterm prospects, according to those who have seen the accounts (ie the Administrator & Regulator) are good.

In addition, one would assume the company made payouts for flood damage in the first quarter. In the first quarter it posted €47m profit (for those who get confused between profits and sales or turnover profit is positive gain from an investment or business operation after subtracting for all expenses)

Wudyaquit

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

No I'm not being simple, just using an example. And how do you know if they are in difficulty because of this or not. Have you access to their accounts, you can't know otherwise. Its events like the flooding that those reserve HAVE to be in place for.

We don't need access to their accounts to know that the past year has been one of the worst for claims in the insurance industry with a spike in fraudulent claims and the floods. All insurance companies have been saying this and its resulted in increased premiums.
Throughout this, the company hasn't been unable to honour any of it's claims. So this catastrophic event you're talking about that might happen DID happen this year and the company has been able to handle those claims. For them to not be able to honour all claims would require floods, a tsunami a few mass riots and a tornado.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So it's pedantic for me to correct you when you say something that is 100% wrong...

And the only reason Quinn is selling any policies is because the administrators have allowed them to, nothing else.

Since we're being pedants, the administrators are entirely separate from the regulator - it's he who has decided what markets they can sell to.

Cookie_Monster

Wudyaquit wrote: »

Since we're being pedants, the administrators are entirely separate from the regulator - it's he who has decided what markets they can sell to.

on the advice of the administrators who have gone in and looked at the mess. If they suggest it was worse than it is then they wouldn't have been allowed continue trading. The Administrators recommended tot he FR to allow UK business to restart (in a limited way) and he has approved.

Wudyaquit

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

on the advice of the administrators who have gone in and looked at the mess. If they suggest it was worse than it is then they wouldn't have been allowed continue trading. The Administrators recommended tot he FR to allow UK business to restart (in a limited way) and he has approved.

Wrong! The administrators recommended opening up the UK market weeks before the regulator agreed, and based on what they said on the news at the time more than just 10% of it.
Your point was that the administrators "allowed" them to sell new policies. This is entirely incorrect - they've literally zero control over this and clearly their recommendations are irrelevant as the FR overruled them in this case.

Cookie_Monster

Wudyaquit wrote: »

Wrong! The administrators recommended opening up the UK market weeks before the regulator agreed, and based on what they said on the news at the time more than just 10% of it.
Your point was that the administrators "allowed" them to sell new policies. This is entirely incorrect - they've literally zero control over this and clearly their recommendations are irrelevant as the FR overruled them in this case.

if they recommended it be wound down would it be irrelevant then?

Wudyaquit

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

if they recommended it be wound down would it be irrelevant then?

Yes, completely, if the FR decided against it. There's a big difference in recommending something and being in control of it, particularly when the only recommendations that we know of have fallen on deaf ears.

gjim

JHMEG wrote: »

That's quite the condescending post. I'm assuming your a school teacher in real life.

No, I work in the finance sector.

And my tone was a result of exasperation because I went to the effort to write a post which described the background to the current situation with Quinn which you responded to by snipping all the substantive issues and responding with some flippant quip about 20 million a month profit. It is irritating - if you want to debate this topic then debate the issues. If you want to spout off gombeen populism, there are plenty of empty barstools around the country for you to occupy.

a) True, but water under the bridge.

(This is regarding Sean Quinn raiding the insurance company's reserves to fund other business ventures.) Oh really? Are you suggesting that his companies have paid back the "investments" from the insurance company's reserves?

b) True, but water under the bridge.

(This is regarding Sean Quinn issuing guarantees against his insurance company for borrowings by other companies under his control to secure loans for property investment.) Oh really? So the legally binding guarantees Quinn insurance has provided to other companies under Quins control no longer apply? So if one of these companies goes bust (say the one building hotels), it's "water under the bridge" and policy holders have nothing to worry about?

c) I feel like using a patronising tone, but I won't stoop to your level. You are incorrect. The solvency ratio is to cover a worst case scenario, where nearly all policy holders make a claim at the same time. Winning the lotto is more likely to happen. That ratio is 150%. Quinn is €100m short of 150%.

Go ahead, do your best - try to patronise me. You wont get far because it's obvious you don't know anything about the finance or insurance industries or actuary.

Quinn Insurance is extremely profitable and made €18m profit in March. That's profit, not the value of policies sold. You seem to be mistaking the two.

QE fecking D. Try reading Anglo's annual report from 2007. They "made" 1.3 billion profits that year. 2 years later and we see the lack of knickers under the fur coat - a 30 billion euro bill that will (through a misguided government guarantee) have to be paid by the countries taxpayers; "I mean who could have predicted a collapse in the property market?". Back in 2007, if we had a proper financial regulator instead of that clown Neary, you'd be squawking about how a great Irish company like Anglo was being persecuted by the regulator.

The FR seems to agree. Maybe he's a balloonhead too? He has let Quinn continue to sell policies.

I deliberately didn't call you a balloonhead in that post by the way but I'm not sure why I bothered.

JHMEG

gjim wrote: »

No, I work in the finance sector.

There's a vacancy with your name on it in a primary school somewhere.

Regulator is happy for Quinn to trade. Now get over yourself.

gjim

JHMEG wrote: »

There's a vacancy with your name on it in a primary school somewhere.

Regulator is happy for Quinn to trade. Now get over yourself.

If you're not capable or inclined to defend your position then don't get snotty when someone picks holes in it. The above is pretty funny given how your entire argument at the start of this thread was that the FR was an idiot. You should stick to circle jerking with people who agree with you; you don't seem capable of handling it gracefully when your arguments are dismantled.

JHMEG

No, I'm not interested in arguing with tools, that's all.

Calina

Okay. I have reviewed this thread and I have the following comments.

1) I apologise for being so busy yesterday I didn't have time to read it.

2) this is the commuting & transport board. Now I fully agree with discussions about city centre traffic being messed up because of a trucker demonstration. On the other hand, if you want to argue the toss on whether Sean Quinn's insurance company should be in regulation or not, you do it on a board where it is an appropriate discussion. This is not a financial issues board or politics.

3) I am certain - without going looking - that there is at least one thread no the subject somewhere on this site. It would astonish me greatly if the only place that Sean Quinn's business model was being discussed was in this thread.

4) I am prepared to leave this thread open now to discuss the wider issue of protest and demonstrations on the streets of the country, and this demonstration in particular. If it veers back into an argument over the actions of the Financial Regulator and the Quinn Business model or in any way off topic at all I will

a) close the thread
b) ban anyone who continued or contributed to offtopicness after this warning.

Please do not abuse each other; do not wander in and scream blue murder about the economic contribution of Quinn to the country. IT IS NOT ON TOPIC ON THIS BOARD and will get you banned.