A Conspiracy I believe in, and it is happening right now!

Mahatma coat

Ah But, considered the Same as Deposits != Deposits.

Bonds are an INVESTMENT, now it may have ben considered a 'Safe' investment, but its a Gamble none the less.

Why should we Guarantee these peoples Gambles.


AND IMO a Run on some of the banks might be what the country needs, the short sharp shock and the restructurng that would have come about after it would be in place now and the country might have smething resembling a functional financial sector.


NEXT QUESTION Gizmo

if the Bailouts were to maintain the lines of credit nescessary to keep SME's afloat, why are the banks point blank refusing to lend to these businesses, instead usin the money to prop up bigger clients and other financial houses???

squod

There was talk of a partial bailout of depositors in Anglo. Up to a max of €200,000. Sensible plan IMO.

gizmo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Ah But, considered the Same as Deposits != Deposits.

Bonds are an INVESTMENT, now it may have ben considered a 'Safe' investment, but its a Gamble none the less.

Why should we Guarantee these peoples Gambles.

Quite true, they're not equal however that is how they have been regarded up until this point. As I said though, it looks like the non-guaranteed ones will be taking a hit. That being said of course, the guarantee runs out in December so it should be interesting to see what happens then.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

AND IMO a Run on some of the banks might be what the country needs, the short sharp shock and the restructurng that would have come about after it would be in place now and the country might have smething resembling a functional financial sector.

I simply can't agree that a run on the banks would be good for anyone. People's savings would be wiped out, businesses would have less places to look for credit and we'd have even more people out of work.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

NEXT QUESTION Gizmo

if the Bailouts were to maintain the lines of credit nescessary to keep SME's afloat, why are the banks point blank refusing to lend to these businesses, instead usin the money to prop up bigger clients and other financial houses???

That was one of the reasons given for the bailout and, to a certain extent it has succeeded. Sure they more picky about who they extend such credit to but I think such caution is needed given the reckless lending which occurred previously. As for propping up bigger clients, well big clients are big employers so not only does it it makes sense to ensures they are looked after but it also ensure Ireland keeps it's reputation as a good location for other such companies to set up.

digme

gizmo what system do you follow as it's not capitalism.

gizmo

digme wrote: »

gizmo what system do you follow as it's not capitalism.

Er, what?

I can only assume you're making a somewhat cryptic reference to the idea that not letting Anglo and co fail is somewhat counter to the capitalist system. The answer is simple however, Anglo was of systemic importance to the economy, at least in the opinion of those who believe allowing it to fail would have a wider reaching effect, and as such this couldn't be allowed happen.

Outside of the country, it's not like we're the first to take such measures. The US, the bastion for the capitalist system worldwide took similar measure with both the banking and auto industry. Either way however, this has nothing to do with the CT here so I don't know why you want to bring it up?

squod

gizmo wrote: »

Anglo was of systemic importance to the economy,

No it wasn't/isn't.

gizmo wrote: »

in the opinion of those who believe allowing it to fail would have a wider reaching effect, and as such this couldn't be allowed happen.

We've already bailed every other bank in the system. The system would hardly have collapsed in that case ( given a limited guarantee of Anglo's deposits ). The people who issued the ?report said, when asked directly if the system woulda failed if Anglo wasn't bailed, said they didn't know what the outcome would be if Anglo wasn't bailed.

gizmo

squod wrote: »

No it wasn't/isn't.

Well that's what's under debate isn't it, one side says it was due to the sheer size of the debt and the affect it would have on the rest of the industry if it went under while the other side disagree on the latter point and hence the assertion it was systemic. The difference being, those educated in the finer points (I don't include myself in this category in any way btw) who disagree with it won't then follow it on with CTs.

squod wrote: »

We've already bailed every other bank in the system. The system would hardly have collapsed in that case ( given a limited guarantee of Anglo's deposits ). The people who issued the ?report said when asked directly if the system woulda failed if Anglo wasn't bailed said they didn't know what the outcome would be if Anglo wasn't bailed.

We've bailed out every bank who had significant property dealings but yes, the rest of the point still stands. Which report are you referring to though? As for what they said, well that again is the point, it was not definite what would have happened but the government evidently didn't want to take the chance, hence the decision to go ahead with the guarantee and bailout.

Anyway, this is still off-topic. To get back on-topic, does this look like they're all looking out for each other?

K-9

squod wrote: »

No it wasn't/isn't.

At the time it was guaranteed and nationalised, it was. It should never have been, but it was.

Remember at one stage its share value was more than AIB and BOI. Think it might have gone over €30 a share at one stage. It was making massive "profits", so much that AIB and to a lesser extent BOI, copied them.

It never should have had 90% of its loan book in property speculation but there you are. I think people see it as a builders bank and think it musn't have been that big, it was huge!

It had borrowings from the main Irish banks, the Irish Central Bank and the ECB, far more that the bondholders everybody is giving out about.

At the time it was Nationalised AIB and BOI share were virtually worthless and were days away from going bankrupt. This wasn't some small American bank in a couple of states, unfortunately.

Making a drastic decision like just letting it fail would have had enormous consequences for the rest of the banking system and the economy. You could argue they did the wrong thing, but it definitely was systemic.

I would say it isn't now and it needs to be wound up in an orderly and the most cost effective way. The markets, bad and all as they are, aren't near the chaos that was 2 years ago.

constance tench

And the big difference is that while NAMA was entirely a State agency, this SPV will have a majority of private owners. Private investors will have 51 per cent of the equity of this SPV and the State, via the hapless NAMA, will have just 49 per cent. The 51 per cent owners will call the shots, decide what is to be done with the assets for which we, Irish citizens, are harrowing €54 billion.

How this could be constitutional is beyond me.

And then there is in Section 56 an exquisite gagging clause. No criticism of government policy or of the Ministers will be permitted by officials of NAMA.

http://politico.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5998:brian-lenihan-sidelines-nama-with-special-purpose-vehicle&catid=224:tonight&Itemid=664

squod

gizmo wrote: »

Well that's what's under debate isn't it, one side says it was due to the sheer size of the debt and the affect it would have on the rest of the industry if it went under while the other side disagree on the latter point and hence the assertion it was systemic.

That debate was created by the government. As I said earlier people were drip fed the bad news piece by piece, as governments do. Knowing very well what the end figure would be. Even if the private debt could cause such problems within the system (mostly builders loans remember) the problems of paying off all that debt while in a recession was a much bigger gamble.

gizmo wrote: »

Well that's what's under debate isn't it, one side says it was due to the sheer size of the debt and the affect it would have on the rest of the industry if it went under while the other side disagree on the latter point and hence the assertion it was systemic.

Anyway, this is still off-topic. To get back on-topic, does this look like they're all looking out for each other?

Yes. The very fact that Drumm is in America and not in jail in Phibsboro proves that.

gizmo

squod wrote: »

That debate was created by the government. As I said earlier people were drip fed the bad news piece by piece, as governments do. Knowing very well what the end figure would be. Even if the private debt could cause such problems within the system (mostly builders loans remember) the problems of paying off all that debt while in a recession was a much bigger gamble.

Several independent economists and observers have said the same thing though, it wasn't just the government. Hell even good 'ol K-9 above said it.

squod wrote: »

Yes. The very fact that Drumm is in America and not in jail in Phibsboro proves that.

So what law did he break in Ireland that could have led to him being arrested?

squod

gizmo wrote: »

So what law did he break in Ireland that could have led to him being arrested?

There is an allegation of share support when the bank lent money to 10 customers to buy shares in the company in July 2008.

There was also the transfer of €7 billion between Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Life Permanent which was designed to flatter Anglo Irish’s balance sheet.

Thirdly, there were loans totalling €87 million that former chairman and chief executive Seán Fitzpatrick concealed from shareholders.

Those three for a start I'd say.

He explained it would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that those involved in the bank at the highest level had malice aforethought in taking the actions that they did. Anglo Irish Bank is being investigated on number of issues.

Linky

gizmo

squod wrote: »

Those three for a start I'd say.

Linky

Ah excellent, thanks for the link! Well then, let's hope they get what's coming to them then. White collar criminals in the US have seen jail time so there is no reason why the same cannot happen over here. I understand, as Ahern said, that it will be difficult since I'm sure some of these guys covered their tracks well, but with the kind of evidence alluded to in the article, they should have a damn good chance.

Yitzhak Rabin

It seems the bondholders are going to be hit harder than I expected.

Fairplay, it seems finally they are going to do the right think and make them accept their gamble lost.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f3a949e-dd4b-11df-9236-00144feabdc0.html

Financial Times wrote:

The bank is offering holders of some of its outstanding junior debt to swap their notes, which are due for repayment in coming years, for new Irish government guaranteed bonds. The move will lead to losses of at least 80 per cent of face value for some bondholders.

Holders of some perpetual bonds that have no fixed maturity date face even greater losses – they are being offered just five cents in the euro.

The bondholders will be asked to vote on the proposal at meetings starting from November 19. The meetings require about two-thirds of creditors to attend and of those attending, three-quarters to vote in favour. If approved, it will allow the bank to call back outstanding bonds that have not voted in favour at just one cent in the euro.

Its definitely a step in the right direction, 2 Bn less we have to put into the blackhole.

I have more to say about this, just need to read a bit more....

K-9

yekahs wrote: »

It seems the bondholders are going to be hit harder than I expected.

Fairplay, it seems finally they are going to do the right think and make them accept their gamble lost.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f3a949e-dd4b-11df-9236-00144feabdc0.html


Its definitely a step in the right direction, 2 Bn less we have to put into the blackhole.

I have more to say about this, just need to read a bit more....

I suspected as much was going on, they just didn't want to publicise it too much.

It's only a small part of the problem, but it's a start. The senior bondholders seems a harder one to deal with as deposits seem to be tied in with it, on a legal basis.

constance tench

The total assets under management which I was able to compile from publicly available figures is €20,871,150,000,000. That is an underestimate because the bond holders who turn out to be Private and Swiss banks don't publish any figures. So Anglo Irish's 'bond holders' hold and invest MORE than 20.8 trillion euros. Guido lists those bond holders as holding between them 4 Billion euros in Anglo Irish bonds.


.... Certainly my figure is a large underestimate. But taking them at face value Anglo Irish would account for an one 5000th of the total assets being managed by all the bond holders. So would even a total default by Anglo Irish cause that much, let alone systemic, pain and risk? Why are the 'Bond holders' and the Irish government so concerned that the Irish people be forced to take the loss and pay the debts for them?

Now lets look at the other side of the equation, at Ireland itself. Well Ireland's GDP before the crash, in 2008, was ... drum roll please... €207 billion. Or 0.207 trillion.


SO.... on one side we have Ireland whose bond holders, its people, have between them a total GDP wealth of 0.207 trillion euros. Who are being FORCED, against their will, to pay Anglo Irish bank's debts to its bond holders, who between them hold 20.8 Trillion euros. The people of Ireland are paying to, and protecting the wealth and power of, people who have 100 times more wealth!


So where do these wealthy bond holders live and work?


Germany has the most with 15 of the bond holders. Who between them hold 5.3 trillion euros.
France is next with 10 bond holders. Who have about 4 trillion to keep them warm.
Britain is third with 9 who have around 3 trillion.
The Swiss have 6 but who have about 8.5 trillion.
America has only three and hold only a trillion.
Other nations include, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Holland Finland, Norway, Sweden, Poland, South Africa and Italy.

So who are they? Well many of the bond holders are privately held banks, which list their activities as asset management for off-shore, non-resident and high value individuals.

To give you an example, one of the private banks is EFG Bank of Luxembourg.
EFG stands for European Financial Group which is the third largest private bank group in Switzerland. It manages over €7.5 trillion in assets. It is 'mostly', 40%, owned by Mr Spiro Latsis, son of a Greek shipping magnate. He also owns 30% of Hellenic Petroleum. His personal fortune is estimated to be about $9 Billion.


Now there is absolutely no suggestion that Mr Latsis has ever done anything wrong or illegal. And his holdings are, I am quite sure, perfectly legal and above board. But when we talk of Anglo Irish's bond holders it is Mr Latsis and those with his sort of wealth who we are talking about NOT widows and orphans or you and me.

It is therefore worth remembering, the next time an Irish politician, or any of our politicians for that matter, say that some welfare payment can no longer be afforded, it is because the money that could have paid for it has been given to the bond holders, people not unlike Mr Latsis, instead. The Irish people are paying and protecting the interests of people like Mr Latsis over the interests of their own children. And it is their own politicians who are doing this.

http://golemxiv-credo.blogspot.com/2010/10/who-are-bond-holders-we-are-bailing-out.html

joebucks

constance tench wrote: »

[/LEFT]


http://golemxiv-credo.blogspot.com/2010/10/who-are-bond-holders-we-are-bailing-out.html
[/LEFT]

Spiros Latsis is best buds with Barroso(Bilderberger) so wouldn't be suprised at all if these lads were the reason we are keeping Anglo propped up.

BumbleB

The day the gold standard was abolished was the genesis for all this stuff happening , as governments could manipulate the money supply any way they wanted .That is why people have descended into debt.

Misanthrope

gizmo wrote: »

So what law did he break in Ireland that could have led to him being arrested?

Most likely none,which is why this country needs a ground-up rebuild.Then we can make sure that it is a violation of our law to do the things they've done.

gizmo

Misanthrope wrote: »

Most likely none,which is why this country needs a ground-up rebuild.Then we can make sure that it is a violation of our law to do the things they've done.

It was pointed out in the very next post that he had in fact broken laws.

Misanthrope

gizmo wrote: »

It was pointed out in the very next post that he had in fact broken laws.

Most likely none that he will be brought to justice for.But thanks for pointing that out.

squod

Sunday Times Ireland broke a story today 31/10/10 alleging senior public servants knew about the illegal €7.4 billion transfers between Anglo and IL&P.

''The department of finance, the financial regulator and the central bank were aware of the September 2008 IL&P transactions well in advance of of anglo Irish Bank publishing it's 2008 financial results in December 2008'' Casey (former chief exec of IL&P) said in a statement

.

A reminder of the events of 2008 here.

On 14 December 2008, the Government decided on an approach to the recapitalisation of credit institutions

sligopark

squod wrote: »

Sunday Times Ireland broke a story today 31/10/10 alleging senior public servants knew about the illegal €7.4 billion transfers between Anglo and IL&P.

of course they did

squod

There's more revelations in today's papers and radio shows.

David Drumm, personally informed him that the bank was haemorrhaging deposits and was facing severe problems with its liquidity at a private dinner in April 2008 -- a full five months before the Government introduced the controversial €440bn deposit guarantee scheme.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/pressure-on-cowen-to-reveal-what-he-knew-months-before-bank-guarantee-2410676.html

For today then our cost of borrowing is rising. Anyone who has agreed to lend ''us'' money to bail our banks is getting a 7% interest bonanza.

Joshua Jones

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D0VhS8qXT0

cedissapointed

''Elite are selling our sovereignty to protect Anglo & Irish Nationwide bondholders

This is an article by David McWilliams about a conspiracy that is happening right now about how our government is handing over our sovereignty to the mega rich elite. Please read it. I fully agree with all he has written in this article. The thing that sickens me most is, I don't even know what to do about it! :mad: ''



''I'll write more tomorrow. Gotta sleep now''


What has shocked me most just to get off track for a minute,was the fact that most of these politicians have no qualifications directly relating to their job,it is all about a nod and a wink even today our dail is all about who u know not what you know,which is the very reason why our buffon FF government have us in this mess..

Before the banking collapse,the ''ombudsman''(a group of highly paid and overated and overqualified specialist consultants) were paid by our government to do a ''stress test'',his results were that our situation was ok and there was nothing to worry about,not long after this deceptive ''stress test'',designed to fool us all the truth came out.

Our debt is still rolling on,and after we have gotten our bail out from the germans (if we **** this up and i am sure we will given the choices in government),we will be on the EU blacklist.

squod

cedissapointed wrote: »

I've borrowed the video from the Kaiser report thread which sums up the story nicely. The country is now a total laughing stock and investors simply cannot believe their luck as the bonds used to loan money to our bailout system are making such fantastic gains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBbgVZz7_YM

squod

Developers score €200,000 salaries from NAMA

http://www.thejournal.ie/developers-score-e200000-salaries-from-nama-2010-10/

constance tench

10.10am: An Irish member of the European parliament has just stormed out of a "closed door" meeting of Irish MEPs in Brussels after the EU's commissioner for monetary affairs, Olli Rehn (left), told him the content of the meeting was to remain secret. He walked out after two minutes.

"What he said was: 'I could give the party line or share the real info,'" said Socialist MEP Joe Higgins, adding that Rehn spoke with a forked tongue – one for the media and one for MEPs.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/business/ireland-business-blog-with-lisa-ocarroll/2010/nov/23/ireland?cat=business&type=article

gizmo

I'm quite sure the talks would have progressed more efficiently without Higgins in the room to be honest. I take it you've all seen the Socialist 10 point plan to "save" the economy? :pac:

meglome

gizmo wrote: »

I'm quite sure the talks would have progressed more efficiently without Higgins in the room to be honest. I take it you've all seen the Socialist 10 point plan to "save" the economy? :pac:

I read these a couple of days ago... are they taking drugs?

squod

meglome wrote: »

I read these a couple of days ago... are they taking drugs?

Can't say that it's any more ludicrous than FF socialising (up to) €100bn in private debt in a recession with absolutely no hope of repaying it.

Let me quote Mr Rehn's admirably frank reminder: "We need to recall that sovereign debt has not been at the origin of the crisis. Rather, private debt has become public debt. The financial sector has misallocated resources in the economy and then stopped working."

gizmo

squod wrote: »

Can't say that it's any more ludicrous than FF socialising (up to) €100bn in private debt in a recession with absolutely no hope of repaying it.

Of course we'll be able to repay it, granted it may take awhile but it'll certainly happen. As for them not being more ludicrous than certain FF policies, can't say I agree. They actually suggest increasing corporation tax, a move which no sane person either within this country or not, would condone.

meglome

squod wrote: »

Can't say that it's any more ludicrous than FF socialising (up to) €100bn in private debt in a recession with absolutely no hope of repaying it.

And yet the majority of the electorate voted for FF. Seems crazy now eh.

That list on the socialist website is not so much socialist as totally anti-capitalist. Those two things are not the same.

espinolman

gizmo wrote: »

Of course we'll be able to repay it,

I won't be paying one cent of it , i did not get a mortgage or any loans and i won't be paying for someone else's house that they can't afford to pay .

The government can send me to jail , but i won't be paying anything .

meglome

espinolman wrote: »

I won't be paying one cent of it , i did not get a mortgage or any loans and i won't be paying for someone else's house that they can't afford to pay .

The government can send me to jail , but i won't be paying anything .

Who did you vote for at the last few elections?

My name is URL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ing8xH3Qj-k

I haven't actually had a chance to watch this yet, but I'm sure it'll be appreciated here! =p

gizmo

espinolman wrote: »

I won't be paying one cent of it , i did not get a mortgage or any loans and i won't be paying for someone else's house that they can't afford to pay .

The government can send me to jail , but i won't be paying anything .

You'll be paying taxes therefore you'll be paying for it.

squod

gizmo wrote: »

Of course we'll be able to repay it,

That question was just raised on Miriam O'Callghan's show there. I doubt we can, I guess we'll see.

Slick50

meglome wrote: »

And yet the majority of the electorate voted for FF. Seems crazy now eh.

The majority did NOT vote for FF, that is why the greens and
the various indo's were involved. The harm was done well before the last election anyway. The insanity that has been perpetrated on our economy since has certainly exasperated the situation though.

Why hasn't the clown leading the investigation into the banks been kicked in the b*ll*x and fired for sitting on his hands for two years waiting for the passwords to the information he is supposed to be examining? Why hasn't anybody been prossecuted for withholding information, or obstructing justice?

espinolman

gizmo wrote: »

You'll be paying taxes therefore you'll be paying for it.

Eh no , i won't be . I will go to jail instead of paying taxes and you will be paying for it .
I am not paying , end of story .
The government should have asked us if we wanted the loan from the IMF before they took it .
There is no of others that won't be paying either .

gizmo

espinolman wrote: »

Eh no , i won't be . I will go to jail instead of paying taxes and you will be paying for it .
I am not paying , end of story .
The government should have asked us if we wanted the loan from the IMF before they took it .
There is no of others that won't be paying either .

So you're going to contact your employer and tell him to stop paying your PRSI and PAYE contributions? Do let us know how that conversation goes.

Also, if the government had asked us whether we wanted the loan from the EU/IMF I would hope that the answer would have been yes since like, we need to pay for things like the public service, social welfare etc...

squod

gizmo wrote: »

Also, if the government had asked us whether we wanted the loan from the EU/IMF I would hope that the answer would have been yes since like, we need to pay for things like the public service, social welfare etc...

The point was made again on VB that we need to separate our private debt from our sovereign debt, now. We can handle the sovereign debt.

constance tench

recipie for disaster

150 billion cans of worms
150 billion red herrings
top with cheese
serve cold

espinolman

gizmo wrote: »

we need to pay for things like the public service, social welfare etc...

What public service ! This is Ireland we're talking about here .

K-9

espinolman wrote: »

What public service ! This is Ireland we're talking about here .

Yeah, but isn't Somalia either.

Di0genes

My name is URL wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ing8xH3Qj-k

I haven't actually had a chance to watch this yet, but I'm sure it'll be appreciated here! =p

We should be printing our own money, and through the expansion or contraction of the amount money we should control the supply.

So we should print less or more money whichever is better.

A shining future as Minister for Finance for Robert Mugabe awaits this member of the Corrs.

Di0genes

espinolman wrote: »

What public service ! This is Ireland we're talking about here .

Roads, police, ambulances, water, power, schools.

digme

Strike against austerity cuts brings Portugal to a halt


Next please.

Yitzhak Rabin

digme wrote: »

Strike against austerity cuts brings Portugal to a halt


Next please.

Next what?