FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

Calm down.

You've been schooled on housing numerous times. Here you feel the need to rant and are doing so. Party on dude.

Schooled?

I remember those debates, not even your friends here wadded in and they were right not to. It wasn't only I who was terribly confused by your South Park economics.

Schooled by someone who doesn't know the difference between bonds and shares...... yeap... sure.... :D

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

What is more amazing is that when afforded the opportunity to actually double-check the facts on this you actually double down on something that was plainly incorrect.

Let me be clear on this and educate you.

Shareholders were NOT bailed out, in fact, they were totally wiped out, completely. Fortunes were lost.
That generally happens when a company is nationalised.

Bondholders are not shareholders.

This is finance/economics 101.
You are welcome.

The bloods up tonight Marko

Did the shareholders/bondholders walk away with nothing? To cut through your pedantry, did private individuals with money tied to investments in the banks walk away with nothing?

I'll not be taking any 'education' from yourself. I know your grasp on economics as regards housing. It's poor.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Schooled?

I remember those debates, not even your friends here wadded in and they were right not to. It wasn't only I who was terribly confused by your South Park economics.

Schooled by someone who doesn't know the difference between bonds and shares...... yeap... sure.... :D

You support paying for 25 year leases on luxury D4 apartments for people on low/no income. I do not.
I'll not be leading you by the hand through the basics again.

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

You know nothing about this and are embarrassing yourself. The market cap of the bank was propped up by the government. The shareholders were bailed out.

Oh great, another one.

Market cap you say?



This is Bank Of Ireland, the better of the Banks.... see the downward spiral of the share price?

Peaks at about 950 in 2007....

This should also educate you.

Bank of Ireland’s market capitalisation in February 2007 was €18.2 billion. There were 979 million shares in issue, giving it a share price of €18.80. Today, there are roughly 30 billion Bank of Ireland shares in issue. So its shares would have to trade at 61 cent each for it to return to its 2007 glory.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/cantillon-giddy-heights-of-banks-pre-crash-shares-1.1405899#:~:text=Bank%20of%20Ireland's%20market%20capitalisation,return%20to%20its%202007%20glory.

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

The bloods up tonight Marko

Did the shareholders/bondholders walk away with nothing

Are you still conflating the two? :pac:

To cut through your pedantry, did private individuals with money tied to investments in the banks walk away with nothing?

It depends on the investment instrument they had and the bank in question.

I know you don't like specifics and like wide-ranging populist soundbites, devoid of logic, evidence and reason, but you know, sometimes this stuff matters, I know it doesn't matter to you, but it does matter.

However, I will repeat, shareholders were not bailed out. Its a fact. The Journal fact checks that part and they say its true.
I guess you disagree?

smurgen

markodaly wrote: »

Oh great, another one.

Market cap you say?



This is Bank Of Ireland, the better of the Banks.... see the downward spiral of the share price?

Peaks at about 950 in 2007....

This should also educate you.

You do realize market capitalization can go negative right?

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

You support paying for 25 year leases on luxury D4 apartments for people on low/no income

I actually don't. Find me the quote where I do.

You are getting fierce desperate and scrambling to save face now. I get it, you don't know anything about economics, and cant tell a shareholder apart from a bondholder, but at least put your hand up when given a lesson on these things.

It's just not a good look and humility goes a long long way sometimes.

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

You do realize market capitalization can go negative right?

Elaborate on this one please, as I think you are making stuff up to save face.
Personally, I think you should just back away before you let out that you know **** all about this.

smurgen

markodaly wrote: »

Elaborate on this one please, as I think you are making stuff up to save face.

The statement is self contained. If you don't understand then I suppose you don't understand.also do you agree there was a bank bailout?for the record?

Bubbaclaus

smurgen wrote: »

You do realize market capitalization can go negative right?

It literally cannot, it is a set formula which literally cannot result in a negative value. Are you confusing market cap with enterprise value or net equity value?

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

They were bailed out by default.

I missed this one, they were bailed out by default.

Again, explain?

PearseCork92

Irish political discourse has reached a nadir when we have the Taoiseach and apologists on here dancing on the head of a pin trying to argue that the bank bailouts in the financial crisis weren't in fact bailouts at all. Silly stuff.

I'll be accused of being a shinnerbot (not that I care), but Sinn Fein's recent ascendancy has done the state one favour in this respect: The men and women of the two orthodox received wisdom parties of FF and FG have been aggressively boxed into a corner, and their cupboard is bare. To stretch the metaphor a bit further, they're like sad old prizefighters way past their prime taking a fight they should have never taken, their chins are shot and their legs about to give out.

I read a great John le Carre quote about the English ruling class in an obituary published about him yesterday. For Irish readers, you can swap out Ireland for England in the below sentence and it would equally apply to the hollowed-out political brands of FFG - and the self-replicating classes their meek members are typically drawn from.

"...men who see the threat to their class as synonymous with the threat to England and never wandered far enough to know the difference."

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

The statement is self contained. If you don't understand then I suppose you don't understand.also do you agree there was a bank bailout?for the record?

Market Cap for a company = share price x number of shares.

So again, tell me how a Market Cap can turn negative?
Shares can go to 0, but cannot turn negative, so how can a market cap go negative?

I think you just confused and trying to bluff away, to try and save face.
It won't work at all.

markodaly

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It literally cannot, it is a set formula which literally cannot result in a negative value. Are you confusing market cap with enterprise value or net equity value?

He probably heard some other financial term or context and thinks it applies here, which of course it doesn't.

Bluffing away to save face.

smurgen

markodaly wrote: »

I missed this one, they were bailed out by default.

Again, explain?

Government guaranteed loans and bought up shares in the bank therefore increasing equity therefore increasing price per share. If they didn't buy shares the share would be worth less.

golfball37

I suppose next Mr Martin will be telling us our sovereign debt wasn't linked to our Bank debt as a consequence either.

smurgen

golfball37 wrote: »

I suppose next Mr Martin will be telling us our sovereign debt wasn't linked to our Bank debt as a consequence either.

Maybe we'll be told USC wasn't a deduction. It's actually a subtraction from our monthly wage and therefore we don't have a clue what we're talking about. It's only we could pay our bills and fuel the economy with bull****.

FrancieBrady

golfball37 wrote: »

I suppose next Mr Martin will be telling us our sovereign debt wasn't linked to our Bank debt as a consequence either.

Then he had a go at somebody about their policies forcing migration. How many had to leave the country because of what his government and cabinet did. The nerve of him even going there.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Are you still conflating the two? :pac:



It depends on the investment instrument they had and the bank in question.

I know you don't like specifics and like wide-ranging populist soundbites, devoid of logic, evidence and reason, but you know, sometimes this stuff matters, I know it doesn't matter to you, but it does matter.

However, I will repeat, shareholders were not bailed out. Its a fact. The Journal fact checks that part and they say its true.
I guess you disagree?

So yes. That's my understanding too.

Bubbaclaus

Some of the economic knowledge on show tonight has been a sight to behold. Some pure mind melting stuff. The confidence with which these posts are made is truly worrying also. I hope people don't actually believe stuff like this is accurate.

Bowie wrote: »

The banks were bailed out and private shareholders were saved from loses. That's as good a bail out as any.
Amazed that you don't know how shares work.

Bowie wrote: »

Where did we buy the shares from?

smurgen wrote: »

You know nothing about this and are embarrassing yourself. The market cap of the bank was propped up by the government. The shareholders were bailed out.

smurgen wrote: »

You do realize market capitalization can go negative right?

smurgen wrote: »

Government guaranteed loans and bought up shares in the bank therefore increasing equity therefore increasing price per share. If they didn't buy shares the share would be worth less.

smurgen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Then he had a go at somebody about their policies forcing migration. How many had to leave the country because of what his government and cabinet did. The nerve of him even going there.

Reminded of Bertie in 2007 : "Sitting on the sidelines, cribbing and moaning is a lost opportunity. I don't know how people who engage in that don't commit suicide". Fast forward to the crises he and his government created that seen a jump in suicides.

"According to the study - the results of which have just been published - suicide rates for Irish men jumped by a staggering 57pc from the onset of the crisis in 2008 to 2012.

All told, the research carried out by Dr Paul Corcoran and his colleagues found that in the five years of the recession there were 561 more deaths by suicide than there would have been if pre-recession trends had continued."

The fact that these people aren't caged is an indictment of our country.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/male-suicide-rate-jumped-by-57pc-during-recession-31317563.html

smurgen

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Some of the economic knowledge on show tonight has been a sight to behold. Some pure mind melting stuff. The confidence with which these posts are made is truly worrying also. I hope people don't actually believe stuff like this is accurate.

I don't understand are you saying the government didn't bail out the banks? Please explain what happened for us mere mortals.

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

Government guaranteed loans and bought up shares in the bank therefore increasing equity therefore increasing price per share. If they didn't buy shares the share would be worth less.

Incorrect.
You ignored the important part of share dilution, which destroyed shareholder value.

E.g. Number of shares on offer for BOI

2007 979 Million
2014 30 Billion approx

For Anglo and AIB it was even worse.

Again, its clear you know nothing about this topic.
Tell us again about negative Market Caps? :pac:

smurgen

markodaly wrote: »

Incorrect.
You ignored the important part of share dilution, which destroyed shareholder value.

E.g. Number of shares on offer for BOI

2007 979 Million
2014 30 Billion approx

For Anglo and AIB it was even worse.

Again, its clear you know nothing about this topic.
Tell us again about negative Market Caps? :pac:

Tell me. When do we get our USC back?

markodaly

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Some of the economic knowledge on show tonight has been a sight to behold. Some pure mind melting stuff. The confidence with which these posts are made is truly worrying also. I hope people don't actually believe stuff like this is accurate.

I would like them to try their 'knowledge' over in the Investment and Markets forum.
I guess they will be telling the regulars there what is what, educating them all and lucky to have them :pac:

But yes, it is not only the lack of knowledge that is surprising it is the confidence in which they write absolute nonsensical gibberish and take it as actual fact.

I can see now where the Anti-Vax stuff for SF comes from.

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

Tell me. When do we get our USC back?

Ah, changing the subject.....

Tell us about negative market caps. Go on.... I am all ears.

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

So yes. That's my understanding too.

If you are talking about shareholders being bailed out, then no, they were not bailed out.

Do you know the difference between a bondholder and shareholder yet?

PearseCork92

Are people seriously making the argument that what went down post '08 weren't bailouts?

Bubbaclaus

smurgen wrote: »

I don't understand are you saying the government didn't bail out the banks? Please explain what happened for us mere mortals.

Where does my post imply that? Making up stuff again smurgen. Of course there was a bank bail out.

I'm simply pointing out the factually incorrect information being so blatantly thrown around on here. You clearly don't understand the bank bailout and how it actually worked, and that is fine. Plenty of people don't get economic stuff. A quick trawl of facebook comments on economic and financial news articles will show that.

However, blatantly posting incorrect information, as you were doing, and confidently claiming other posters are wrong when you are completely making things up is a whole separate ballgame. Trumpian.

Bubbaclaus

PearseCork92 wrote: »

Are people seriously making the argument that what went down post '08 weren't bailouts?

What posters are claiming that? Haven't seen any posts suggesting such a thing.