NTMA sell 3month treasury bills at 1.8%

[Jackass]

Dirk Gently wrote: »

Perhaps if you quit being overly optimistic others wouldn't seem so overly pessimistic. We're back in the markets when we can sell 5 and 10 year bonds at a sustainable rate, not when we pull off a PR stunt.

That makes absolutely no sense.

How is this a PR stunt? We raised 500 million in funding through the off loading of bonds, absolutely unthinkable even a couple of weeks ago, and got a great deal on it too.

How am I being "overly optimistic"?? Only in Ireland could you ever be accused of being that, particularly with what's going on. So what will it take? If we get into the longer term bond markets by the end of the year, what will it be then? The rate should have been better? We're mortgaging the state? The money isn't being used correctly? The flowers in Leinster House don't tickle your fancy?

There's always something. There is absolutely nothing to bemoan here, this is a good, positive step forward, stop looking for the negatives and lighten up.

It's exactly your type of attitude which would further cripple our recovery too if consumers were to be as pesamistic and cynical about everything and never react to any progress.

4.legs.good

Laminations wrote: »

This is a positive step. And in your analogy I'd still consider it positive that anyone would lend at low interest or otherwise to that family

We do not know who bought these bills, for all we know its the same banks that we put so much money in, one arm of the state paying another in other words.

If these were foreign buyers then why has the NTMA not said so? It would make them look very good if OUTSIDE parties are the ones buying up the debt.

[Jackass] wrote: »

That makes absolutely no sense.

How is this a PR stunt? We raised 500 million in funding through the off loading of bonds, absolutely unthinkable even a couple of weeks ago, and got a great deal on it too.

The state has enough money (erm "well funded" is the expression politicians like to use) to last for a lot longer than 3 months, more than that in 3 months we come to October when there is a bump usually in tax revenue.

Why go get into debt when there is cash in hand doing nothing?

This is a political PR stunt (worse than than its a waste of money we don't have), if you are unable to see it then...

If the state was in bad need of money (no more welfare or wages in X weeks) and then they managed to raise it then yes that be great. This is what is happening in Greece who have no issue selling short term bills either.

[Jackass] wrote: »

There's always something. There is absolutely nothing to bemoan here, this is a good, positive step forward, stop looking for the negatives and lighten up.

It's exactly your type of attitude which would further cripple our recovery too if consumers were to be as pesamistic and cynical about everything and never react to any progress.

I am after pointing out, using the governments own figures,
that this is akin to building a snowman and being proud of its shape on the decks of the Titanic in face of an incoming iceberg of debt.

Since when is realism considered "bemoaning"? Next Mr Bertie here would tell me to go and commit suicide I presume??

[Jackass]

Well, you don't know what plans the Government may have for this premature windfall, do you? When we're bridging a budget deficit of Billions, it's not correct to say we're in good shape financially and also perhaps this is an additional treasure chest that can now be used for stimulus initiatives within the Economy.

And what you refer to as a "PR" stunt, I would more refer to as an expression of stability. The earlier we go to the markets, and the high praise once again we've received in Europe over this, has shown we are on an upward curve, it's shown that to the world, which in its self can encourage inward investment and consolidate existing investment and putting our best foot forward and distancing ourselves more and more from the title of Europe’s bankrupt and positioning ourselves more and more towards the international view of a stable Economy.

You presume that this is a stunt 4 years out from an election where the money will be p!ssed down a drain and we'll lose money on this and that it's all a big waste of time. I'd suggest you are the one with incredibly narrow vision in what you are seeing from this...

Dannyboy83

antoobrien wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Agree.
It definitely is good news for Ireland.
A baby step in the right direction, and there will be plenty more to make, but at least it's in the right direction.

Well done to the OP for the positive thread also, hopefully we will see more of this sort of thing.

Permabear wrote: »

Well, this all assumes that a time will come down the road when people will be prepared to turn their backs on Sinn Féin and the ULA and "swallow the necessary cuts."
But I don't see that significant progress has been made over the past four years in softening people up for cuts; in fact, quite the opposite! The government has given the unions and the populist left-wing parties four whole years to dig in their heels and perfect their campaigns of resistance.
It's arguably harder to make cuts today than it would have been back in 2008.

Very good point and very strongly agree.
There is a large adjustment to be made at this budget.
I'm sure all hell will break loose if the appropriate changes are made.

I really hope FG/Labour do not try to take credit for the turnaround.
They had one major job to do, which was reform expenditure and they have failed miserably at it.
Education spending is actually higher than in 2008 iirc.
Most of the cuts have come from savaging Capital Spending and low hanging fruit.

We needed strong leadership and they have failed to deliver.
If anything, they have been detrimental to the reform process - for example, by claiming that the required re-visitation of the Croke Park Agreement would cause nuclear winter.

As you said it's arguably harder to make the appropriate cuts today than it would have been back in 2008.


The actual turnaround is due external factors, to which their contribution was minimal. I guess it's quite fitting...Fianna Fail refused to take the blame for their destruction of our economy, claiming it was due to external factors, rather than a domestic problem. FG/Labour will try to take credit for a slight turnaround, claiming it's due to domestic factors, rather than external factors.

Cookie_Monster

Borrowing 500m for 3 months, was it one of those scam-esque pay day loan websites we got it off? I see nothing positive in having to borrow like that.

K-9

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The actual turnaround is due external factors, to which their contribution was minimal. I guess it's quite fitting...Fianna Fail refused to take the blame for their destruction of our economy, claiming it was due to external factors, rather than a domestic problem. FG/Labour will try to take credit for a slight turnaround, claiming it's due to domestic factors, rather than external factors.

In fairness our rates have come down steadily over the last year or so, there even was a thread about it on here and only really rose again because of the crisis of the last month. While I would say external factors play a huge part some people do think we are doing something right!

Valmont

4.legs.good wrote: »

Oh and to give an analogy and put things into perspective, this is like a family that is due in 18 days to repay 8,300 euro and then has to find another 27,700 euro in the 24 days after that, and that's after they use up all their earnings.
This family is after getting a low interest loan from credit union which is due in 3 days for 500 euro

So have they turned a corner? ...

No but they think they will have when uncle Uro inevitably fires up the printing presses...

ardmacha

Education spending is actually higher than in 2008 iirc.
Most of the cuts have come from savaging Capital Spending and low hanging fruit.

Education spending is educating 8% more students. Now some of these have a legal requirement to attend and have to be facilitated, but the government could kick out some of the older ones. However, if you were one of these people you might argue that building more roads for declining traffic is not as important as building human capital.

djpbarry

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The actual turnaround is due external factors, to which their contribution was minimal. I guess it's quite fitting...Fianna Fail refused to take the blame for their destruction of our economy, claiming it was due to external factors, rather than a domestic problem. FG/Labour will try to take credit for a slight turnaround, claiming it's due to domestic factors, rather than external factors.

Then there’s the electorate, who believe all positive developments are due to external factors and all negative developments are due to government incompetence.

Dave!

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree with all of that.

I don't know how it can all be achieved without massive social unrest though... I don't think anyone has any desire to go back to the bad old days of strikes!

How can we tear up the CPA without every PSU in the country going on strike?

antoobrien

4.legs.good wrote: »

We do not know who bought these bills

According toe the NTMA it was investment banks and asset managers that bought them - unlike recent Portuguese & Greek sales which were largely CB & quick buck trader afafirs.

The €500m "auction" of bonds due for repayment in October was widely hailed as a success. Lenders accepted an interest rate of 1.8pc, which is lower than those for similar bonds in Italy and Spain.

There also appeared to be strong demand for the bonds. The NTMA said reports from dealers showed that most of the lenders were European banks and asset managers, rather than traders looking for quick profits.

"There are real money investors," Mr Corrigan said. "That contrasts with similar auctions by Greece and Portugal, where the bonds ended up with the European Central Bank."

Why is this significant?

Well the investment banks and asset managers don't intentionally invest in bad assets. They're generally (not always) in it for the long haul not the quick buck.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dave!

They know they'll get no sympathy (the opposite, one would think) from the rest of the country too, so maybe they'll be less eager than I imagine. It does concern me though!

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well they do. And so do welfare campaigners who would bring the country to a halt if welfare was radically reformed. But so too do companies that threaten the end of investment if corporation tax is increased AND wealthy individuals who threaten a flight of capital if taxes come their way

If they don't get their way, and if the government doesn't endlessly bend over backward to appease them, "the country [will] grind to a halt overnight." However, one can legitimately ask whether the state's fiscal policy should be directed by a bunch of unelected bully boys

Indeed

It's a fine line of placating vested interests that any government needs to walk.

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A few weeks? A country without services would fall into chaos after one week. There would most definitely be riots, and at that point when those pictures are broadcast across the world, we'll have become as bat **** crazy an investment as Greece - our borrowing costs would rocket.

The risk in such a move, if it goes wrong, outweighs the benefit if it goes right.

deise blue

Laminations wrote: »

A few weeks? A country without services would fall into chaos after one week. There would most definitely be riots, and at that point when those pictures are broadcast across the world, we'll have become as bat **** crazy an investment as Greece - our borrowing costs would rocket.

The risk in such a move, if it goes wrong, outweighs the benefit if it goes right.

You are , of course , quite right.

The Indo reported recently that the Unions have amassed large strike contingency funds , the PSEU have a fund that would enable members to strike on full pay for 2 weeks & larger Unions would appear to have sufficient funds to finance at least a week on full pay.

The Unions are quite aware that rolling strikes by frontline staff are easier to finance & a general work to rule would grind the system to a halt albeit over a more prolonged period - this is to my mind the options they would pursue in the unlikely event that the CPA is torn up .

It would appear logical that given the Government's fear of Industrial mayhem that CPA 2 must be on the cards.

Laminations

deise blue wrote: »

It would appear logical that given the Government's fear of Industrial mayhem that CPA 2 must be on the cards.

I'd imagine so. But the government need to get a good deal (as good a deal as possible) and end some of the more bizarre work practices, overtime and allowances. I think that although the PS was expanded rapidly it can now realistically only be whittled down slowly, and this needs to happen possibly for the next decade. The glut in middle and higher management needs to be addressed and mechanisms for removal of dead weight (an acceptance that continuous under performers can be fired) must be achieved.

I'd like to see it all done quicker (just like I'd have liked to see prosecutions relating to Anglo done quicker) but at this point I can't see how it would happen.

Increments I'd hope would be done away with

djpbarry

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Pretty much, yes. And if the government takes a drastic course of action that the unions strongly disapprove of, a swift kick to the country’s nether regions will be forthcoming.

I’m not saying this is how it should be and I’m not saying I like it, but this is how it is nonetheless and it’s going to take time to convince the general population that, for example, not every nurse is a saint or sacking a teacher doesn't necessarily equate to diminished standards of education.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The problem there is that the general populace seem to think Irish public services are the worst in the world (I frequently encounter people who claim that Ireland would be better off with Cuba’s healthcare system, for example) and they already pay too much tax. Pointing out that, for example, tax on income is far higher here in the UK is usually met with dismissals along the lines of “yeah, but the NHS is free” (and of course the NHS is always thought to be amazing), illustrating a great big tax-service disconnect.

djpbarry

Dave! wrote: »

They know they'll get no sympathy (the opposite, one would think) from the rest of the country too...

I really wouldn’t be so sure about that. If reforms are targeted at cutting down on administration, they would probably be met with general approval, regardless of whether the reforms are actually a good idea or not. However, woe betide any TD who dares suggest that, for example, Ireland has too many nurses, for (s)he will be beaten to death by an angry rosary bead-wielding mob.

Dannyboy83

Laminations wrote: »

The risk in such a move, if it goes wrong, outweighs the benefit if it goes right.

I would completely disagree on this point.
I believe it's absolutely vital for the short/medium and extremely long term future of the country, that we determine who is in charge.

What happens to the carriage when you have two horses pulling in opposite directions?
We have witnessed it during this crisis.

The government is supposed to be the boss, but the unions are actually extorting decisions and determining policy.
This situation should never have been allowed to arise. Extortion.

When Kirk tells Spock to do something, he orders him.
He didn't beg, plead or negotiate.

Either that, or the electorate will have to start democratically electing union bosses. Non-democratically elected people are determining policy and the future of the country.
It reminds me of the crap with the first dail/second dail around the civil war.

Dave!

djpbarry wrote: »

I really wouldn’t be so sure about that. If reforms are targeted at cutting down on administration, they would probably be met with general approval, regardless of whether the reforms are actually a good idea or not. However, woe betide any TD who dares suggest that, for example, Ireland has too many nurses, for (s)he will be beaten to death by an angry rosary bead-wielding mob.

I wouldn't imagine the government would be targeting nurses though... As you say, it'll be targeting administrators and management, increments, pay, allowances, and so on.

We can reduce a good bit of expenditure that way, which the general public would see as quite reasonable, and overdue. The kite-flying over the last few weeks isn't really hinting at reducing front-line staff, even if that's required (I dunno).

Laminations

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I would completely disagree on this point.
I believe it's absolutely vital for the short/medium and extremely long term future of the country, that we determine who is in charge.

Let me clarify. The government are in charge but with certain realities in place.
You cannot ignore the reality that unions have bargaining power and will have in the short medium and long-term, while at the same time highlighting other realities like the flight of capital if the wealth tax were to be introduced or the fact that we gave a banking guarantee or the protections on senior bondholders.

None of these realities mean that the government is not in charge they just make the government's job more difficult.

For example the power that the wealthy have in opposing something like a wealth tax or higher income tax band could be interpreted as them making threats (challenging the power and authority of government - leading us to the same response as youve suggested, having to establish who is in charge) or them specifying a reality

djpbarry

Dave! wrote: »

I wouldn't imagine the government would be targeting nurses though...

I know they won’t, but maybe they should be? Ireland employs more nurses per head of population than anywhere else in the world. What’s more, Irish nurses are among the best paid in the world.

There’s room there for savings methinks, but the government won’t go near such a thorny issue. Why? Because the general perception among the electorate is that the Irish healthcare system is ****e and could probably benefit from having more nurses, not fewer. Not only that, but there is definitely a popular perception that nurses are badly paid. Then of course there’s the fact that Ireland produces a lot of nursing graduates – cutting down job opportunities for these graduates would be hugely unpopular.

I'm curious, how come a thread about NAMA and Treasury bill turns in a Thread about the amount of nurses in the Irish health services, the mods are usually very good on getting threads back on track.


djpbarry I am also curious as to what your source for your statement that Ireland employe's more nurses that any countries in world and that they are the best paid nurses in the world?...


I know how much nurses are paid in the US ( especially in some areas )

djpbarry

mariaalice wrote: »

I'm curious, how come a thread about NAMA...

The thread title mentions the National Treasury Management Agency, not the National Asset Management Agency.

mariaalice wrote: »

...and Treasury bill turns in a Thread about the amount of nurses in the Irish health services...

Because it's one of the indicators that the OECD uses to assess the state of health services. I merely took the health service as an example of a public service where savings need to be made.

I'm not having a go at nurses!

mariaalice wrote: »

djpbarry I am also curious as to what your source for your statement that Ireland employe's more nurses that any countries in world and that they are the best paid nurses in the world?...

I didn't say they were the best paid, I said they were among the best paid.

I did however say that Ireland employs more nurses per head of population than anywhere else in the world, when what I should have said was Ireland employs more nurses per physician than anywhere else in the world (or the OECD if we're being pedantic).

Anyway, the source for this data is the OECD's Health at a Glance, sections 3.7 and 3.9.

I did also notice in that report that the number of nursing graduates produced by Ireland is (rather surprisingly) below the OECD average, so I will take back what I said about Ireland producing lots of nursing graduates. I do remember a lot of girls I went to school with going into nursing, but things have obviously changed.

Sorry about the NAMA thing....you do know there is a public services recruitment embargo on at the moment..been there from 2009 or there abouts. Its the casual repeating of fact that are taking out of context and the misunderstanding of complex areas of public policies that I am getting at.

K-9

mariaalice wrote: »

I'm curious, how come a thread about NAMA and Treasury bill turns in a Thread about the amount of nurses in the Irish health services, the mods are usually very good on getting threads back on track.


djpbarry I am also curious as to what your source for your statement that Ireland employe's more nurses that any countries in world and that they are the best paid nurses in the world?...


I know how much nurses are paid in the US ( especially in some areas )

It was originally more a news thread but a poster did ask if it was a good or bad thing and the thread developed from there. I do take your point and now that the question about nurses has been answered, posters should concentrate on the general issue about whether this is good or bad. Talking about Nurses pay is a bit off topic, there are other threads for detail like that and it has come up before plenty of times on Public Service threads.

Please report posts or pm mods if you have concerns about a thread in future.