The Kingston story: Bidders fail to pay up for auctioned cows

Sam Kade

RightTurnClyde wrote: »

They're going to draw big crowds with those T&C's. :)

They even want the transport paid for up front, surely if someone put money for the animals their buying up front they are hardly going to leave the animals there.

flutered

Bullocks wrote: »

Oh you don't have to tell me about banks ! I've sailed close to the wind with them and its not nice

i havent used a bank almost 50 years, thankfully, the credit union never let me down, admittedly there were never excessive amounts involved

flutered

20silkcut wrote: »

There were senior bond holders who were protected. I know that a fella called Timothy Geithner in the U.S. Somehow had the authority to step in and stop the Irish government from Burning bond holders.
The rights and wrongs of it are another matter and there is sweet damn all we can do about it.

But who ever these senior bond holders are be they governments or pension funds or Russian oligarchs they are above this moral hazard.
I'm just arguing to keep this in mind when banks get on their high horse about moral hazard. Pay back what you owe but don't listen to their bull ****! Or feel too guilty.

last week he got jp morgan to give him 30b to invest for them, thats just one bank

flutered

BoatMad wrote: »

While this isn't a direct banking thread

The people with the " authority " that stepped in were the ECB. Some of the most exposed bond holders were other euro area backs. ( all this only applies to Anglo. There was never going to be a default of the pillar banks )

you can add to thet all the heads of the eu are non elected, also all are past chairman o goldman sucks

flutered

Sam Kade wrote: »

We would be still going to the creamery with donkey's and carts :eek:

compareing the price of milk between now and then, the co-ops really spent some money here around here mitchelstown in particular

flutered

RightTurnClyde wrote: »

They're going to draw big crowds with those T&C's. :)

can you really get a passport for cattle you may or may not buy

Bullocks

RightTurnClyde wrote: »

They're going to draw big crowds with those T&C's. :)

Like any auction they don't really need big crowds just two people to bid against each other . A crowd might help the atmosphere / price

Panch18

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I haven't heard of any aid organisation fundraising for Norway or Switzerland. There is arguments for and against. It's not always as black and white as it is sometimes made out to be.

A bit of perspective wouldn't go astray

Are you referring to Switzerland - one of the richest countries in the world since like the dawn of time

and Norway with its huge oil industry since the 1960's??

Are you (and most people do) forgetting exactly where Ireland was in the 1970's? Just how bloody poor the country was

Bass Reeves

flutered wrote: »

can you really get a passport for cattle you may or may not buy

I expect that you have to furnish them with a herd No so the minute the cattle are sold the money will be debited from the deposit you gave and the cattle transferred into your herd.

Sam Kade

I might head down and buy a few if there are bargains

whelan2

At this stage would they not be better to sell them privately?

Bass Reeves

whelan2 wrote: »

At this stage would they not be better to sell them privately?

Because they are a receiver they cannot they could tender them out but that would be no better. It is like the first sale when the father could not meet the terms applied to all other buyers they had to reauction.

Receiver's have to operate with in the rules they publish.

J.O. Farmer

Sam Kade wrote: »

They even want the transport paid for up front, surely if someone put money for the animals their buying up front they are hardly going to leave the animals there.

Sure what if you have your own way of transporting them. Most farmers have a way of moving 1 or 2 if that's all they buy.

Farmer Ed

Panch18 wrote: »

A bit of perspective wouldn't go astray

Are you referring to Switzerland - one of the richest countries in the world since like the dawn of time

and Norway with its huge oil industry since the 1960's??

Are you (and most people do) forgetting exactly where Ireland was in the 1970's? Just how bloody poor the country was

I said it wasn't black or white. But to suggest that we would still be going around in donkeys and carts had we not joined the EU is also a bit extreme. Yes farming has got a lot of money from the EU. No disputing that. But it is also true that we have given away a huge fishing asset also, to the detriment of our fishing industry.There is also no disputing that either. So I don't think the argument is as black and white as some would have us believe. I'm not pro or anti, but I think it is good to have an open mind and possibly we should not be made feel we need to be eternally grateful. We have made our contribution to the EU also,

54and56

blue5000 wrote: »

But it is that simple. The dogs in the street know that the reason the bond holders weren't burnt is because of who those bond holders were. If the banks had been allowed to fail politicians' and bankers' heads would have been stuck on railings somewhere public.

Your rhetoric sounds good and is all "Robin Hood" etc but giving every person and company in the economy permission to not repay it's debts is not a zero sum game. If Bank A supplied Farmer B with €100,000 on the basis it would be paid back with interest over a three year period and Company C supplied Farmer B with €100,000 worth of goods or services to be paid for within 60 days which €100,000 debt is payable by Farmer B and which isn't? How exactly would you determine which creditor should be discriminated against? I assume you'd say Bank A's debt wouldn't be repayable but can you give any justification for why?

What if instead of Bank A lending Farmer B €100,000 it was the local credit union lending €100,000 of local peoples savings to Farmer B, would you still advocate that Farmer B shouldn't repay the loan? Can you give me a summary of how you would inform your local friends and neighbours that their life savings were now gone because the rule of law had been suspended and Farmer B, who borrowed recklessly to buy over priced land in an unsustainable manner, was being rewarded for his reckless behaviour and was now the proud owner of €100,000 of his friends and neighbours savings?

How do you think that would work out in terms of social unrest?

It's very easy, simplistic and popular to say things like "burn the bondholders" and "let the banks fail" because it feels impersonal but when you break it down if you let the banks fail all that would happen is a large scale version of the credit union example I gave above. The lifetime savings of the entire nation, particularly the retired who have nothing else to fund their retirement, would be completely and totally wiped out as would a number of pension funds who were holding bank bonds as investments. There was no free pass when it came to dealing with insolvent banks. I'm not saying the Govt of the day got it right and I'm definitely not saying the self serving bankers who were rewarded handsomely for making reckless loans with no personal downside when the loans inevitably went bad shouldn't have been held accountable but the idea that you can simply allow every person and company with bank debt to walk away from it is pure populist fantasy which doesn't stand up to even the slightest degree of scrutiny.

Water John

Look at the reality of banking, over time. It has always been the case that debt write downs are practised. Remember banks and lenders actually create money.
To give real example, look a the front of the Irish Examiner today. Man has debts of €2.8M, (sound familiar). He gets a write off of 50%, despite Pepper Finance not agreeing to it.

You also have 'hand back the keys' in other countries. There banking does not collapse because the debt doesn't follow you. Which is in effect a guaranteed write down if things go wrong.

That's what happens in the real world of banking.

The capitalist, money system hasn't collapsed because of it.

54and56

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I'm not pro or anti, but I think it is good to have an open mind and possibly we should not be made feel we need to be eternally grateful. We have made our contribution to the EU also,

Ireland has always been and will continue to be (in the short term) a net recipient of money from the EU

Ireland "has been a net recipient of European funds since we joined the EU, and will remain so throughout the duration of the current EU financial plan, the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). This basically means we get more money out of the EU than we put in." See http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/ireland_in_the_eu/impact_of_membership_on_ireland/index2_en.htm

If we hadn't become a full member we'd never have received all the funding which has helped take us from being a small underdeveloped regional economy to a modern open globalised economy. If we'd tried to do a Norway or Switzerland (without their oil or banking industries) we may have a better fishing industry but all the other sectors of the economy which have grown as a result of full membership of the EU wouldn't have happened.

coolshannagh28

I don't think anyone is advocating total debt writedown but it is important to remember that the pillar banks had to make provision for bad debt but naturally are reluctant to follow through.Also that due to low growth worldwide and particularly in Europe central banks ie the ECB are using QE to little effect and that other means of creating stimulus are under discussion .

Water John

I think, Cool, you should spell it out in simple terms for many that QE is simply, printing money.

That where the money most of us owe in debts to banks comes from.
It is simply plucked from the air.

54and56

Water John wrote: »

Look at the reality of banking, over time. It has always been the case that debt write downs are practised. Remember banks and lenders actually create money.
To give real example, look a the front of the Irish Examiner today. Man has debts of €2.8M, (sound familiar). He gets a write off of 50%, despite Pepper Finance not agreeing to it.

You also have 'hand back the keys' in other countries. There banking does not collapse because the debt doesn't follow you. Which is in effect a guaranteed write down if things go wrong.

That's what happens in the real world of banking.

The capitalist, money system hasn't collapsed because of it.

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me!!

Two points:-

1. Yes debt write downs occur but they are a tiny portion of the overall loan book and similar to how any trader will have bad debts. The percentage norm is low single digits e.g. 2-3%. See http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FB.AST.NPER.ZS and compare Ireland over the last few years with Israel!!! What I was arguing against is blanket write off's of all bank debt i.e. 100%. That's what some people were advocating and it's just simplistic nonsense.

2. You referenced handing back the keys as being acceptable practice in other countries and I agree. If you pledge property assets against a loan and you can't make the repayments you hand the property back to the bank and they sell it to recover as much of the original loan as possible. Even that seems to be unacceptable to those sympathising with the Kingstons. Unfortunately there is a tradition in Ireland of borrowers also having to give PG's regardless of the fact the property is given as collateral and/or the fact it's a Ltd company which is borrowing the money. I personally finds this to be a lazy requirement by banks and unfair but borrowers who signed up to those terms can't later on complain about it can they? Thankfully that particular aspect of lending is becoming less effective as security for banks due to the new personal insolvency regime etc.

Sam Kade

Is this the recession thread :rolleyes:

coolshannagh28

The problem with QE in its present form is that it goes directly to investment banks who direct it into their own products ,the stock markets and hedge and vulture funds ie the super rich ,very little goes into the real economy as Keynes envisaged.
Ben Bernanke commented after he left the FED that it would have been much more effective to drop it from helicopters and all signs are that the ECB is coming to a similar conclusion

54and56

Water John wrote: »

I think, Cool, you should spell it out in simple terms for many that QE is simply, printing money.

That where the money most of us owe in debts to banks comes from.
It is simply plucked from the air.

QE is IMHO nothing more than kicking the can down the road and will ultimately result in hyper inflation which will be good for people with large loans and very very bad for those with savings and fixed income pensions etc. I know it sounds ludicrous but with negative interest rates, cheap oil and floods of cash being printed a trigger which we can't anticipate (maybe a Trump presidency??) could result in a sudden and huge loss of confidence in the US$ or other major fiat currencies and when/if that happens it will inevitably result in massive inflation.

I can't see any other outcome from massive PE other than a loss of confidence in the major currencies and hyperinflation.

You heard it here first (or 101st!!)

54and56

^^^ Apologies for going off thread. Won't happen again.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Sam Kade wrote: »

Is this the recession thread :rolleyes:

No, I think that's over in the Milk Price thread:D

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

^^^ Apologies for going off thread. Won't happen again.

It's F&F, it's almost compulsory to go off thread:pac:

freedominacup

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

No, I think that's over in the Milk Price thread:D

It's F&F, it's almost compulsory to go off thread:pac:

Nothing would ever get done around here if we stayed on topic.

pedigree 6

freedominacup wrote: »

Nothing would ever get done around here if we stayed on topic.

It would be boring as hell as well.:D

flutered

haughy and fitsgerald were two got got writedowns, we had a finannce minister without a bank account, how did he recieve his wages and expenses, by cheque or most likely cash in the hand

Water John

We also did not one but two tax amnesties. One by a LB Min of Finance.

That means we officially gave a nod and wink to the black economy.
Democracy should have fallen, according to some, here.

case885

Je_suis_Jean wrote:

QE is IMHO nothing more than kicking the can down the road and will ultimately result in hyper inflation which will be good for people with large loans and very very bad for those with savings and fixed income pensions etc. I know it sounds ludicrous but with negative interest rates, cheap oil and floods of cash being printed a trigger which we can't anticipate (maybe a Trump presidency??) could result in a sudden and huge loss of confidence in the US$ or other major fiat currencies and when/if that happens it will inevitably result in massive inflation.

Je_suis_Jean wrote:

I can't see any other outcome from massive PE other than a loss of confidence in the major currencies and hyperinflation.

Je_suis_Jean wrote:

You heard it here first (or 101st!!)

If this is true then why hasn't it happened in Japan who have used quantitative easing for years?