KBC want to leave the Irish Market

Kermit.de.frog

This means less competition, less choice, more cost for consumers.

All for people who won't pay or shouldn't be in the houses they are in.

The problem in Ireland at a fundamental level is unfairness in the sense work doesn't pay and being a sponge does.

We are all paying for the sponge.

Ubbquittious

I for one am glad to see them going. One less foreign megacorp around to milk us dry.

Don't feel too sorry for them not to be able to reposess houses. They magicked the money used to buy them into existence using their banking license and I'm fairly sure most people are paying away. This is move is probably just sabre rattling by the international banking cartel so the government will make it even easier to make money.

All these banks already making millions more than they used to because they've sent home a load of their staff and replaced them with machines they bought from NCR. They begrudgingly kept em on for a year or two in order to chivy customers towards the machines and then gave 'em the boot.

Eric Cartman

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It would need cross party support. Basically it is never going to happen.

We have atleast 2 parties with seats in the dail and europe who have actively defended overholding of rent and nationalising the housing stock. Not a chance in hell you’ll ever get a unilateral message of ‘come on we actually need to do this’ from our elected reps

Ubbquittious

Ubbquittious wrote: »

I for one am glad to see them going. One less foreign megacorp around to milk us dry.

Don't feel too sorry for them not to be able to reposess houses. They magicked the money used to buy them into existence using their banking license and I'm fairly sure most people are paying away. This is move is probably just sabre rattling by the international banking cartel so the government will make it even easier to make money.

All these banks already making millions more than they used to because they've sent home a load of their staff and replaced them with machines they bought from NCR. They begrudgingly kept em on for a year or two in order to chivy customers towards the machines and then gave 'em the boot.

The domestic megacorps are not benign. They have mistreated their Customers with contempt for many decades.

Ubbquittious

Ubbquittious wrote: »

I for one am glad to see them going. One less foreign megacorp around to milk us dry.

Don't feel too sorry for them not to be able to reposess houses. They magicked the money used to buy them into existence using their banking license and I'm fairly sure most people are paying away. This is move is probably just sabre rattling by the international banking cartel so the government will make it even easier to make money.

All these banks already making millions more than they used to because they've sent home a load of their staff and replaced them with machines they bought from NCR. They begrudgingly kept em on for a year or two in order to chivy customers towards the machines and then gave 'em the boot.

Do not complain when the remaining three raise fees and interest rates.

This is what you want.

Mike Murdock

Ubbquittious wrote: »

I for one am glad to see them going. One less foreign megacorp around to milk us dry.

Don't feel too sorry for them not to be able to reposess houses. They magicked the money used to buy them into existence using their banking license and I'm fairly sure most people are paying away. This is move is probably just sabre rattling by the international banking cartel so the government will make it even easier to make money.

All these banks already making millions more than they used to because they've sent home a load of their staff and replaced them with machines they bought from NCR. They begrudgingly kept em on for a year or two in order to chivy customers towards the machines and then gave 'em the boot.

No foreign bank has ****ed Irish consumers over more than that Irish basketcase bank with a history of malfeasance, AIB.

Larbre34

The question must be asked, how in a single market and monetary union, the banking markets are defined by nation.

Any person or business in the Eurozone, or even the whole EU, should be able to approach any commercial bank for services and any bank should be obliged to provide those services, providing they are a person or business of satisfactory standing and satisfy diligence.

In many sectors, the last people that seem to be well served by the Single Market, is consumers.

The J Stands for Jay

Larbre34 wrote: »

The question must be asked, how in a single market and monetary union, the banking markets are defined by nation.

Any person or business in the Eurozone, or even the whole EU, should be able to approach any commercial bank for services and any bank should be obliged to provide those services, providing they are a person or business of satisfactory standing and satisfy diligence.

In many sectors, the last people that seem to be well served by the Single Market, is consumers.

Hello Irish person, I see you would like a mortgage. Ok, let's see what we can do for you. Ah, you have no credit rating because your country only set up a credit registry in recent years. Hmm, let's see what kind of security we can take over the loan. Ah, I see that it is difficult to enforce the legal charge over the property and it could result in political and media backlash. Anyway, let's see, the weighted asset rating of your local property market means we will have to hold more capital than for other markets. Based on all this, we cannot offer an interest rate that will be less than that offered by the existing companies in your local market.

As we are unlikely as much profit on the capital as is available on other markets, it is not profitable to pay the local regulatory levy that would allow us to sell into your local market.

Thank you for your interest in Big Euro Bank. Have a nice day.

I'm not worried about competition — online, international institutions are well able to fill the gap in retail banking, and to do so very efficiently.

I'm not worried about moral hazard and bank repossessions.

I'm worried about the kind of economic future where an international bank cuts its losses and runs, foreseeing a future risk against mortgage default.

We all seem to be running around griping about people who won't pay their mortgages, or capitalisation rules — do you not see, that isn't the point? KBC seems to have forecast a risk profile for the Irish mortgage market that is not sustainable.

It's the economy we should be worried about now.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not worried about competition — online, international institutions are well able to fill the gap in retail banking, and to do so very efficiently.

Which of these efficient institutions provide mortgages?

Gatling

namloc1980 wrote: »

Repossessions are not happening constantly except in the case of abandoned property. But evictions are very few and far between. The courts just continuously adjourn cases that look like they might require a forced eviction. Banks also have little appetite to force an eviction after the Strokestown fiasco and all the politicians saying how awful it was.

Did I remember correctly it's takes something like 10+ years of legal actions to get a full repossession here ,


Seen a case where a tenant literally caused €16,000 + damage to a rental property and paid no rent for over a year yet the tenant only had to pay around 2k in compensation to the landlord.

Crazy property situation here

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not worried about competition — online, international institutions are well able to fill the gap in retail banking, and to do so very efficiently.

No they won’t. Not for mortgages or general loans. Yet we are in a single currency. In general cross currency retail loans are very rare because the mortgage payments fluctuate and the lenders might have to be paid back in less valuable currency or the borrower may face large payment problems, but the single currency should have meant that banks should have tried to come into the country, which is high waged. Some did, but why did they leave?

I'm not worried about moral hazard and bank repossessions.

I'm worried about the kind of economic future where an international bank cuts its losses and runs, foreseeing a future risk against mortgage default.

We all seem to be running around griping about people who won't pay their mortgages, or capitalisation rules — do you not see, that isn't the point? KBC seems to have forecast a risk profile for the Irish mortgage market that is not sustainable.

It's the economy we should be worried about now.

They aren’t making profits now. They only future risk they might be anticipating is the fact that they can’t repossess. This present day recession is likely to end this year.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They aren’t making profits now. They only future risk they might be anticipating is the fact that they can’t repossess. This present day recession is likely to end this year.

What are you talking about 'this present-day recession'? We aren't even in recession, yet, and you're making predictions about its ending?

The problem is that KBC's economic forecasts may have foreseen a shock to the Irish mortgage book. Any claim that some nonexistent recession will end this year is...

SeanW

KBC may possibly be leaving for economic reasons. But we have an underlying structural issue - no effective repossession process, lots of people not paying their mortgages, and I still remember that bizarre situation where a bunch of thugs invaded a KBC office with a coffin. It's entirely plausible that all of this lead the KBC to decide "Screw you guys, I'm going home"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTc3zcnIZOw

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What are you talking about 'this present-day recession'? We aren't even in recession, yet, and you're making predictions about its ending?

We are in lockdown which has produced a recession everywhere but Ireland, however that's a technical anomaly due to part of the economy over performing i.e. Pharma. However much of the economy is in recession. The idea that a future recession is looming when lockdown is over and the economy goes back to normal is ..strange?

The problem is that KBC's economic forecasts may have foreseen a shock to the Irish mortgage book. Any claim that some nonexistent recession will end this year is...

Thats not the problem. The problem is existing issues with their existing loan books. They are happily trading in other parts of Europe so unless you think the post lockdown recession you are predicting will apply to Ireland only, the place which has performed better than most, then your argument doesn't hold.

Geuze

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What are you talking about 'this present-day recession'? We aren't even in recession, yet, and you're making predictions about its ending?

The problem is that KBC's economic forecasts may have foreseen a shock to the Irish mortgage book. Any claim that some nonexistent recession will end this year is...

There was a severe recession in 2020.

Q1 and Q2 saw huge falls in GDP and GNP, that is a recession.

There was a rebound in Q3 and Q4, so overall GDP and GNP actually rose for the whole year.

Of course, GDP and GNP are affected by MNC activity, so I will look at Modified Domestic Demand MDD instead:

2020 MDD down 5.4% - that is a recession.

Geuze

Deleted User wrote: »

We are in lockdown which has produced a recession everywhere but Ireland, however that's a technical anomaly due to part of the economy over performing i.e. Pharma. However much of the economy is in recession. The idea that a future recession is looming when lockdown is over and the economy goes back to normal is ..strange?

Correct.

2020 was the recession.

2021 is the rebound / recovery.

AndrewJRenko

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Exactly, Tony Benn and Michael Foot couldn't nationalise a banking industry better than Ireland's 'right wing' have managed in the last 12 years.

The banks were nationalised because they were about to go bust, as a result of the "light touch regulation" regime introduced by the right wing McDowell.

ED E

Consequences? Hah, you must be mental. This is Ireland.

Prime feckin example:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/council-takes-legal-advice-as-deadline-to-demolish-co-meath-house-passes-1.3532240

suicide_circus

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/kbc-exit-to-lead-to-higher-banking-costs-forconsumers-and-small-firms-40322390.html

If the deal goes through it will damage competition, increase the cost of debt and increase the cost of day to day banking.

But sure as long as people who dont pay their mortgage can take the piss and stay in the house arent we laughing?

Mike Murdock

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The banks were nationalised because they were about to go bust, as a result of the "light touch regulation" regime introduced by the right wing McDowell.

Introduced by McCreevy.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

We are in lockdown which has produced a recession everywhere but Ireland, however that's a technical anomaly due to part of the economy over performing i.e. Pharma.

thats not a technical anomaly. A technical anomaly world be an accounting exception. Computer chips and pharma are industries, which yes, did, buoy up the economy. The point being, we are not in recession as you claimed.

Thats not the problem. The problem is existing issues with their existing loan books. They are happily trading in other parts of Europe so unless you think the post lockdown recession you are predicting will apply to Ireland only, the place which has performed better than most, then your argument doesn't hold.

KBC was profit making, I see no indication of existing problems with their loan books. If I were you, I'd argue that I am wrong to state that KBC is predicting problems with its loan books, and instead, you might say, are just seeking wider profit margins elsewhere. That would be a sustainable argument, but the above is not.

Pa ElGrande

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The banks were nationalised because they were about to go bust, as a result of the "light touch regulation" regime introduced by the right wing McDowell.

Back in 2010 the then minister for finance Brian Lenihan claimed ‘We all partied’. Go back and see the pressure bought on Charlie McCreevy circa 2000 where they actually tried to rein in the credit expansion of the 1990s boom, the voters punished them for it, after that Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen made sure to keep the gas pedal of easy credit on. Anyone from that period who put their head up and said this was nuts got pilloried with "you just want to stop me making something of my life" as they scrambled to take on more debt. That was the Zeitgeist at the time, woe betide you if you stepped in the way you were being removed, easier just to take the money and run. Did you care to pay attention to those who exited with golden parachutes (the regulators did). You have to go back further and look at the career of insiders like Peter Sutherland if you want to follow how that developed.

Anyway, local politics is just the effect, for the cause you have to zoom out and the primary factor was the introduction of the Euro which bought interest rates down right through the 90s and opened up the debt markets. In case you had not noticed the EU sovereign debt markets are broken and are being bailed out by the ECB in an effort the keep interest rates low. The chief proponent of negative interest rates (NIRP), Mario Dragi is now prime minister of Italy. It is more likely that the ECBs actions and policies play a significant role in decisions to leave Ireland.

Another thing is clear in the aftermath of 2008, no more bank bailouts, the risk now falls on the banks depositors, so take a closer look at PTSB, BOI and AIB, that is your savings at risk and the question we should be asking is what do the banks that are leaving see that we don't?

Eric Cartman

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Back in 2010 the then minister for finance Brian Lenihan claimed ‘We all partied’. Go back and see the pressure bought on Charlie McCreevy circa 2000 where they actually tried to rein in the credit expansion of the 1990s boom, the voters punished them for it, after that Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen made sure to keep the gas pedal of easy credit on. Anyone from that period who put their head up and said this was nuts got pilloried with "you just want to stop me making something of my life" as they scrambled to take on more debt. That was the Zeitgeist at the time, woe betide you if you stepped in the way you were being removed, easier just to take the money and run. Did you care to pay attention to those who exited with golden parachutes (the regulators did). You have to go back further and look at the career of insiders like Peter Sutherland if you want to follow how that developed.

Anyway, local politics is just the effect, for the cause you have to zoom out and the primary factor was the introduction of the Euro which bought interest rates down right through the 90s and opened up the debt markets. In case you had not noticed the EU sovereign debt markets are broken and are being bailed out by the ECB in an effort the keep interest rates low. The chief proponent of negative interest rates (NIRP), Mario Dragi is now prime minister of Italy. It is more likely that the ECBs actions and policies play a significant role in decisions to leave Ireland.

Another thing is clear in the aftermath of 2008, no more bank bailouts, the risk now falls on the banks depositors, so take a closer look at PTSB, BOI and AIB, that is your savings at risk and the question we should be asking is what do the banks that are leaving see that we don't?

Id say the banks see a rocky future here
Negative interest for the forseeable, anunderperforming mortgage product capped at 3.5x earnings and almost impossible to enforce reposession, SF looming at the door with nationalisation plans for the housing stock, a likely tax hike and contraction of spending, the US talking about top up taxes to chase out FDI.
Its a mucky time to be in banking

howiya

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

KBC was profit making, I see no indication of existing problems with their loan books. If I were you, I'd argue that I am wrong to state that KBC is predicting problems with its loan books, and instead, you might say, are just seeking wider profit margins elsewhere. That would be a sustainable argument, but the above is not.

Could you elaborate on how you see no indication of existing problems with their loan books?

14% of the loan book is made up of non performing loans

Ger Roe

What is the role of Bank of Ireland in all of this?

I heard radio news reports yesterday saying that the KBC announcement was a shock and that previously it had looked like they were restructuring and setting themselves up to be a leaner operation in for the longer haul. Then we had the sudden statement yesterday that they are dancing with the devil and in talks with BOI.

Was this move started by BOI making an offer to buy out some competition?. Are they using the fact that the Irish citizens paid dearly to keep them afloat, to now re-establish the market dominance that got us into the crash situation in the first place?

Whatever the real reason behind all this, it is never going to be good for the customer and it has to reflect badly on our economic reputation. We crashed.... things changed... and now we are heading back to the previous status quo.

Bottom line is that there is no real competition in many of the cornerstone marketplaces in this country, Insurance, Banking, Energy - no matter how many added cost regulatory structures we put in place.

It's quite depressing.

AndrewJRenko

Mike Murdock wrote: »

Introduced by McCreevy.

They both have blood on their hands, for sure.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Back in 2010 the then minister for finance Brian Lenihan claimed ‘We all partied’. Go back and see the pressure bought on Charlie McCreevy circa 2000 where they actually tried to rein in the credit expansion of the 1990s boom, the voters punished them for it, after that Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen made sure to keep the gas pedal of easy credit on. Anyone from that period who put their head up and said this was nuts got pilloried with "you just want to stop me making something of my life" as they scrambled to take on more debt. That was the Zeitgeist at the time, woe betide you if you stepped in the way you were being removed, easier just to take the money and run. Did you care to pay attention to those who exited with golden parachutes (the regulators did). You have to go back further and look at the career of insiders like Peter Sutherland if you want to follow how that developed.

Dunno about you, but I expect leadership from Ministers, not following the crowd.

Pa ElGrande

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Dunno about you, but I expect leadership from Ministers, not following the crowd.

It is very difficult for politicians to go against the grain with good leadership. For a more recent example look at the fate of various state governors in the United States, After a year Ron DeSantis of Florida, need never pay for another meal in a Florida restaurant again, yet a year ago he got incredible heat from the media and political opposition, even trying to prise Democrat run counties open in that state was difficult.

A year ago Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York state was being heaped with praise in the media and even mentioned as US presidential material. Today he is battling for his political survival in a state with moribund economic activity and people fleeing the state, in the face of rising taxation and lack of opportunity.

You can also contrast the political fortunes of Kristi Noem, Governor of South Dakota and Gavin Newsom, Governor of California over the past 12 months.

howiya

howiya wrote: »

Could you elaborate on how you see no indication of existing problems with their loan books?

14% of the loan book is made up of non performing loans

He hasn't a clue, mate. It's embarrassing to watch.

AndrewJRenko

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

It is very difficult for politicians to go against the grain with good leadership. For a more recent example look at the fate of various state governors in the United States, After a year Ron DeSantis of Florida, need never pay for another meal in a Florida restaurant again, yet a year ago he got incredible heat from the media and political opposition, even trying to prise Democrat run counties open in that state was difficult.

A year ago Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York state was being heaped with praise in the media and even mentioned as US presidential material. Today he is battling for his political survival in a state with moribund economic activity and people fleeing the state, in the face of rising taxation and lack of opportunity.

You can also contrast the political fortunes of Kristi Noem, Governor of South Dakota and Gavin Newsom, Governor of California over the past 12 months.

Yeah, it is very difficult, and that's why they're paid the big bucks. If it was easy, sure any of us could do it.

They have access to the best of economic expertise so there is no excuse for not doing the right thing.