FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

markodaly

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, all I am doing is asking you to take the losses that the AIB shareholders took. Send me the cheque for €5k and I guarantee that you will get the €5 cheque back. After all, if they lost nothing, you have nothing to lose.

Ah but blanch, you have been destroyed by the facts here, they were bailed out after all, sure they get €0.01 of €1 of their money back!!

Loaded they were after the bailout, so they were! :pac::pac:

Bubbaclaus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Many many good ordinary business people,farmers etc,who worked hard all their lives were duped into buying bank shares (know locally of one family lost million odd)....the old people around here,who bought through land commission etc warned us well clear of the banks,

Well, they will all be delighted to know that they were all actually bailed out, as was discovered today thanks to the revelations of Smurgen and Bowie.

smurgen

markodaly wrote: »

Ah but blanch, you have been destroyed by the facts here, they were bailed out after all, sure they get €0.01 of €1 of their money back!!

Loaded they were after the bailout, so they were! :pac::pac:

The usual pedantry from the 2+2=5 brigade. To detract form Michael's booboo.

"PROTECTING BONDHOLDERS IN the failed banks was “rightly repugnant” and not forcing investors to wear some of the losses was a “significant flaw” in the troika’s bailout.

Those comments came from Central Bank governor Patrick Honohan at a conference involving one of Ireland’s lenders, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)."

https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-bailout-honohan-1889901-Jan2015/

James Brown

smurgen wrote: »

The usual pedantry from the 2+2=5 brigade. To detract form Michael's booboo.

"PROTECTING BONDHOLDERS IN the failed banks was “rightly repugnant” and not forcing investors to wear some of the losses was a “significant flaw” in the troika’s bailout.

Those comments came from Central Bank governor Patrick Honohan at a conference involving one of Ireland’s lenders, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)."

https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-bailout-honohan-1889901-Jan2015/

As you can see if you say something they don't want to hear they get all YFG about it.

Bubbaclaus

smurgen wrote: »

The usual pedantry from the 2+2=5 brigade. To detract form Michael's booboo.

"PROTECTING BONDHOLDERS IN the failed banks was “rightly repugnant” and not forcing investors to wear some of the losses was a “significant flaw” in the troika’s bailout.

Those comments came from Central Bank governor Patrick Honohan at a conference involving one of Ireland’s lenders, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)."

https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-bailout-honohan-1889901-Jan2015/

Ah, we are back to conflating bondholders with shareholders I see.

Did you actually read the rest of the article you posted by the way? It isn't exactly supporting your argument.

smurgen

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Ah, we are back to conflating bondholders with shareholders I see.

Did you actually read the rest of the article you posted by the way? It isn't exactly supporting your argument.

Read. But still trying to understand what you're saying exactly. What michael martin said was bull. I suppose I'll leave it to the king of Newspeak to summarize how I feel .


"Micheal Martin has now abandoned Fianna Fail’s apology for wrecking the economy and reverted to Bertie-speak, according to Health Minister and Fine Gael candidate in Dublin West Leo Varadkar.



At the FF Ard Fheis in 2012 Micheál Martin said :

‘It’s not enough to point to the World recession or other party’s policies. We were in government. We should have acted differently. We got things wrong. No equivocation. No half apology. Just the plain unvarnished truth’.



“Many people accepted and respected this apology. Yet Micheál Martin seems to have forgotten he ever made it. Instead, he has reverted to Bertie-speak, claiming the economic crash was ‘multi-factorial’ and that the Banking Inquiry blames others. It proves that they have learned nothing and that it’s the same old Fianna Fáil.



“Micheál Martin has shown a growing tendency during this election campaign to re-interpret history in a manner that would make the Soviet Union proud. He announced during a Leader’s Debate that he treated more patients as Minister for Health. Not true. He claimed that health infrastructure was transformed under his ministry. Not true. No even claimed to have increased life expectancy faster than in any country. Not true.



“Then again, this is the man who denied the bailout was coming two months before the Troika arrived, the man who voted against VAT cuts on tourism that created 30,000 jobs, the man who voted against USC cuts for middle income earners and who voted against tax equalisation for the self-employed.



“Micheál Martin seems to be pinning his hopes on an outbreak of collective amnesia, hoping that the people will forget that Fianna Fáil presided over the most horrific economic collapse in this State’s history, something he acknowledged and took responsibility for in the past"


https://www.finegael.ie/micheal-martins-total-recall-becomes-true-lies-as-he-rows-back-on-apology-for-wrecking-the-economy-varadkar-2/

Bubbaclaus

smurgen wrote: »

Read. But still trying to understand what you're saying exactly. What michael martin said was bull. I suppose I'll leave it to the king of Newspeak to summarize how I feel .

I've no idea what any of that has to do with the posts you have been making in this thread about shareholders and bailouts, but ok. I'm off to bed and can't be dealing with this nonsensical back and forth anymore.

Looking forward to your explanation of negative market caps by the way, when you eventually come up with it. I know you are going to full on ignore this part of my post by the way, just amuses me that you don't even attempt an answer.

It will be a revelation when you can show how share price*issued share capital (2 numbers which cannot be negative) when multiplied together arrive at a negative figure. A new age for mathematics

James Brown

In contrast, it was largely taken for granted that holders of subordinated debt, also known as “junior bondholders”, were not subject to similar protection and would receive very little of what was owed to them.

This position was reflected in a “take it or leave it” offer of 20 cent on the dollar/euro to junior bondholders by the Irish government, an offer accepted by most creditors. Some, however, decided to “hold out”, including by selling their claims to hedge and distressed debt funds (otherwise known as “vulture funds”).

Fast forward several years and considerable legal activity in the meantime regarding junior debt, including litigation in the UK courts. Most recently, a few days before Christmas the Government let it be known that for legal reasons outstanding holders of junior bonds issued by Anglo Irish would have to be “made whole”, i.e. repaid in full.

So nobody came away with any money from failed not fit for purpose bailed out banks?

The State could have saved more than €9 billion by imposing losses on senior debt holders at the six Irish banks, the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) told the Government in March 2011.

Written evidence supplied to the Oireachtas banking inquiry shows the NTMA, which manages Ireland’s national debt, advised the Government that “immediate steps” could be taken to enable this burden sharing, adding that markets had already priced this haircut into the bonds.

But it also warned that there could be potential implications with “external authorities”, a reference to the European Central Bank, which had warned Dublin a “bomb” would go off if it was to do so.

The failure to impose losses on senior bondholders to recoup some of the cost of the €64 billion bank bailout has been a source of political controversy since Fine Gael and Labour entered Government.

Finty Lemon

You can tell how well the government is doing when the fapposition feels the need to make something of this.

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

The usual pedantry from the 2+2=5 brigade. To detract form Michael's booboo.

Like the other poster, do you now know the difference between a bondholder and a shareholder?

Ill repeat, shareholders were NOT bailed out. This is a fact.

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

As you can see if you say something they don't want to hear they get all YFG about it.

Well, you say something alright.

Gibberish for the most part, usually factually wrong and displaying ignorance and contempt for the facts, but yes, I guess you do say something alright. Ill give you that.

markodaly

Bowie wrote: »

So nobody came away with any money from failed not fit for purpose bailed out banks?

Ah, I see you want to move the goalposts now, from your earlier utterances.

Shareholders own shares
Bondholders own bonds.

Shares are equity
Bonds are debt

Do you understand this bit at least? Is that too much to take in? Or do I need to dumb it down further for you. I know these are new concepts, so ill be patient.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, I see you want to move the goalposts now, from your earlier utterances.

Shareholders own shares
Bondholders own bonds.

Shares are equity
Bonds are debt

Do you understand this bit at least? Is that too much to take in? Or do I need to dumb it down further for you. I know these are new concepts, so ill be patient.

Thanks for proving my point. Mind I'd prefer an adult discussion.

markodaly wrote: »

Well, you say something alright.

Gibberish for the most part, usually factually wrong and displaying ignorance and contempt for the facts, but yes, I guess you do say something alright. Ill give you that.

We bailed out the banks and people with interests in those banks got money from the tax payer.
Make sure you tell Micheal all this.

smurgen

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, I see you want to move the goalposts now, from your earlier utterances.

Shareholders own shares
Bondholders own bonds.

Shares are equity
Bonds are debt

Do you understand this bit at least? Is that too much to take in? Or do I need to dumb it down further for you. I know these are new concepts, so ill be patient.

Typed like a person who doesn't pay all that much USC every month. His words are irrelevant because the deductible is there in black and white and no amount of revisionism from him or the likes of Bertie will tell the taxpayers otherwise. His words in the Dail and subsequent apologist words here tell me that lessons have not been learnt.

Cluedo Monopoly

I see M Martin is trying to rewrite history. What a silly thing to say. He will be reminded of that one for years!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40192176.html

Taoiseach referenced bailout 57 times before 'bizarre' claim Irish banks 'were not bailed out'

Taoiseach Micheál Martin referenced the bank bailout some 57 times in the Dáil before his "bizarre" claim that the Irish banks “were not bailed out” yesterday.

The Taoiseach was accused of seeking to re-write history and "denying reality" in making his claim that the banks did not receive a €64bn bailout.

Classic FF

Leo will probably have to answer questions on this later in the Dail. #Awkward!

Nobotty

Micheál Martin must be reading the Kamikaze handbook

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

Typed like a person who doesn't pay all that much USC every month. His words are irrelevant because the deductible is there in black and white and no amount of revisionism from him or the likes of Bertie will tell the taxpayers otherwise. His words in the Dail and subsequent apologist words here tell me that lessons have not been learnt.

Words are irrelevant, much like the truth it seems.

Tell me all about Negative Market Caps.

FrancieBrady

Nobotty wrote: »

Micheál Martin must be reading the Kamikaze handbook

He got Leo curtailed and off the silly Tweeting, self promotion fixation etc, then he goes and loses the rag and puts himself in the frame.

You couldn't write the level of absurdity.

Fann Linn

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He got Leo curtailed and off the silly Tweeting, self promotion fixation etc, then he goes and loses the rag and puts himself in the frame.

You couldn't write the level of absurdity.

And there was I just forgetting about the bail out and the associated pay cuts etc.

Good man Michael.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20219703.html?type=amp&__twitter_impression=true

smurgen

markodaly wrote: »

Words are irrelevant, much like the truth it seems.

Tell me all about Negative Market Caps.

I have to laugh at some someone arguing that taxpayers funds were used to bailout and arguing on pedantics thinking they've won an argument. Imagine if the money was physically burned and you think you're correct because you've pointed out it was actually diesel used to burn the money instead of petrol. That's basically where you're at. Lol.

McMurphy

smurgen wrote: »

I have to laugh at some someone arguing that taxpayers funds were used to bailout and arguing on pedantics thinking they've won an argument. Imagine if the money was physically burned and you think you're correct because you've pointed out it was actually diesel used to burn the money instead of petrol. That's basically where you're at. Lol.

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1339509669690261504?s=19

FrancieBrady

Woulfe is back.
Kelly grilling Varadkar in the Dáil on latest revelations.

ooter

A few weeks ago Simon Harris spoke in the dail about not introducing trumpism in to Irish politics, let's hope he calls out Michael on this one.

Fann Linn

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Woulfe is back.
Kelly grilling Varadkar in the Dáil on latest revelations.

The gift that just keeps giving. Happy Christmas.

jmayo

Bowie wrote: »

I'm not but I prefer them to FF/FG. More a SD person.
Yes, because that would be irellivant regarding this.

Yes, that's not good enough on the tax payers coin. We deserve better than what we've come to expect from FF/FG and hangers on.

Yes. It's cronyism with other peoples money. It should be recognised as fraud. As with any crony sweet deal.

Well excusing it as 'the way it is' and scaremongering any party outside of FF/FG, you might be okay with it. I'm not.

I was trying to make the point that there is corruption without it being linked to ff, fg, labour or indeed sf or sd.

And if you think otherwise you are deluded.

Bowie wrote: »

Private investors were rescued. They would have been wiped out but for the bail outs.
Where did we buy the shares from?

The con here is people talking about the need for a bailout like the problem fell from the sky and not a government MM was part of.

Ahh FFS.
You are talking through your ar**.

Shareholders were not bailed out.

I know people that lost hundreds of thousands.
And no they are not rich connected types, but ordinary folks that had foolishly believed the hype behind the banks and invested all into them.

Now bond holders are a different story and were most definitely bailed out as we end up having to pay them off.

Also the banks as companies, as entities were bailed out and whilst ordinary workers mostly kept their jobs so did the fookers that managed to run the places into the ground.

Also the massive debtors of the bank, i.e. all those developers with massive loosely secured loans, got a bailout of sorts as they for the most part got to siphen off their funds to relatives, declare bankruptcy, get sweet deals working for the banks and NAMA.

So yes there were bank bailouts unlike the semantics being played by MM.
But they most definitely were not for the benefit of the shareholders.

And yes FF are very much to blame for the fookup with creating an economy hugely dependent on cheap credit as in construction bubble and retail boom and at the same time letting the banks regulation go to pot.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It was a massive new issue of shares in the banks, they weren't "bought" from anywhere. The shareholders didn't receive anything and their shareholdings got diluted to essentially 0.

Pretty amazing really that you clearly don't know what happened and you are coming out with statements like the below.



It's pretty clear really that there is a large amount of people that don't actually know what happened during the bailout, or have any understanding of how a new issue of shares works and where the flow of funds go in a new issue.

Some people haven't a fooking clue.
What a surprise a lot of them would vote for the more socialist magic money tree parties. :rolleyes:

Then again the other parties are fooking useless as well.

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

I have to laugh at some someone arguing that taxpayers funds were used to bailout and arguing on pedantics thinking they've won an argument. Imagine if the money was physically burned and you think you're correct because you've pointed out it was actually diesel used to burn the money instead of petrol. That's basically where you're at. Lol.

If you think differentiating between a bondholder and a shareholder is mere 'pedantics' then its no surprise people can be so ignorant about complex topics.

Tell me all about Negative Market Cap's.... anytime soon will do.

smurgen

markodaly wrote: »

If you think differentiating between a bondholder and a shareholder is mere 'pedantics' then its no surprise people can be so ignorant about complex topics.

Tell me all about Negative Market Cap's.... anytime soon will do.

Go on educate us on the difference of between a bondholder and shareholder in the context of government bailout using taxpayer money.

James Brown

jmayo wrote: »

I was trying to make the point that there is corruption without it being linked to ff, fg, labour or indeed sf or sd.

And if you think otherwise you are deluded.

Can you see how my commenting on a one man company who promotes gigs in the middle east, got a contract to import ventilators/respirators, which were not fit for purpose, is an issue? Do we need to give it the 'ah sure they're all at it'? I don't think so. We need to call it out IMO.

jmayo wrote: »

.........
What a surprise a lot of them would vote for the more socialist magic money tree parties. :rolleyes:

Then again the other parties are fooking useless as well.

Like not paying student nurses but giving raises to Judges and whips, but yes the opposition something something...

James Brown

smurgen wrote: »

Go on educate us on the difference of between a bondholder and shareholder in the context of government bailout using taxpayer money.

Some folk rely on pedantry to aid their agenda however flawed.

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

Go on educate us on the difference of between a bondholder and shareholder in the context of government bailout using taxpayer money.

I will once you tell us all about these Negative Market Caps I keep hearing about.