How dare PTSB tell us to mind our own business

Quoted from previous poster...
"I will refuse Noonan's calls for cheaper mortgages - PTSB boss

Asked directly whether he would refuse a request from Finance Minister Michael Noonan, the bank chief executive replied; "Yes; but not bluntly." He added that he'd tell Mr Noonan that he'd "prefer if you didn't ask me questions about the running of my organisation."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How dare PTSBs CEO state that "he'd "prefer if you didn't ask me questions about the running of my organisation.". HOW DARE HE!!!!

He is equating himself and his organisation to a private enterprise , one that is capbale of standing on its own two feet, and one that has to live or die by its own business decisions.

HOW DARE HE!!!! His entire sector was bailed out by the tax payer multiple times since 2008. I dont just mean the massive payouts and bond holder bailouts, which of course are colossal,
but I also mean the entire shaping of government policies relating to everything since 2008 has been based around their goal to "get the banks back on track".
The entire economy is literally bending over backwards to ensure they return to a healthy status. And this is because they made poor business decisions, and launched poor products (i.e. tracker mortages) ten years ago.

How dare he now turn around and say, please dontinterfere with the running of my business.... Arrrgrgggghhh!!!!!!! I think I need to lie down for a bit

Dear Domhnall,

Settle yourself now.
.................
Stop being so correct.
Why not keep subsidizing PTSB and their other Irish banking cousins?.
Remember their proven thieving cousins in UK Banking have thus far have paid 41 Billion in fines ,yet no-one jailed!
In Ireland we have had token fines.So long live, Risk freedom for Bankers!

The downright arrogance of the PTSB CEO is so far off the wall as to be breathtaking.
Banking apologists just do not seem to get it ,spurious arguments of
1. Competition (that's what got us into the hole)
2. Market must decide , (then why did Joe Soap bail them out)
3. Too Big to fail ( correct we bailed them out, but now realise Mr Market won,t let them ever fail)
4. We must get them ready for sale , (why?)
5. Once they are in profit we will sell them to the Market (to future screw us)

On( Mature Reflection )

Donal , I too need to lie down !

thanks. so true.

nobody, and I mean nobody, can justify what this man has said here, given the history of his institution, and the un-believable failsafe he is continuously offered by his government and ultimately us, the taxpayer.

People need to WAKE UP. They read a comment like that, but they just think, oh thats business. It is NOT business!!!!!
These institutions are NOT businesses!!!!! They do not have to take responsiblity for bad business decisions, poor product launches, they do not live or die by
any of the standard "swords" by which real world business men live or die.

They are more akin to spoilt children, always aware that if they mess up, daddy's check book is but a phone call away.

I believe that this PTSB guys quote above, and a number of similar quotes, should be gathered together on a single leaflet, or a single page of the Irish Times, and printed for all the masses to read.
But not just the quotes, followed by a surgical analysis of what they are saying, highlighting the history behind what theyre saying and shining a true light on the contempt they hold for us and for our bailouts.

truly and utterly dissapointed at this stage . how can this be acceptable behaviour??

D

Domhall,

Quite acceptable unethical behaviour , because
1.People permit themselves to be robbed;; 300,000 of them on Standard Variable Rate (SVR) mortgages.
2. People permitted themselves to be robbed;; by Payment protection Insurance (PPI)
3. People permitted Banks to rob them on spurious Investment Products.
4. PTSB,s cousins AIB have been bailed out twice by taxpayer in my working life.
5. Danske Bank look like they are in trouble over Millar case and mortgages .
6. Pity other Banks can,t be caught on their contract shenanigans.
If 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 worked , maybe we could genuinely get OUR money back.

And then our Government keep the 6 year rule , just in case the Plebs get friskey!

I have a wry smile when people get worked up over Utility companies, yet let these chancers off.

I've just written to Minister Noonan about this matter plus all government tds in my area. We want action now!

Fantastic! Well done fair play to you...

I think comments such as that one made by PTSB should incense not just SVR mortgage holders, but every single tax paying member of the community.

As I say, not just because of the incredible bailouts and financial support/buyouts which have been forthcoming,
but for the entire shaping of government policies which has had to be focused largely on the "health of the banks", and the huge negative impact that has
had on the rest of the economy.

thanks I hope you hear back and stay in touch.

Thanks
Domhnall

I doubt this is going to be popular, but here goes ...

Who the hell does Noonan think he is? If he wants to be the CEO of PTSB, or nominate someone else to do it, let him nationalise it. The current and previous governments took a decision to bail out the banks with our money. That means they undertook to restore them to a position where they could trade again. If we are lacking healthy competition it is because the government(s) vastly underestimated the size of the hole in the banks. They perpetuated one screw-up with another. They then brought in a bunch of further ham-fisted measures which have helped make sure that there won't be any foreign banks rushing to compete in the Irish market. The effort to rehabilitate the banks has been a dismal failure.

The PTSB CEO is entirely right to tell Noonan to get stuffed with his populist proposals. Let Noonan nationalise them or introduce a levy, and see how the banks' future saleability looks.

dub_nerd said:

I doubt this is going to be popular, but here goes ...

Who the hell does Noonan think he is? If he wants to be the CEO of PTSB, or nominate someone else to do it, let him nationalise it. The current and previous governments took a decision to bail out the banks with our money. That means they undertook to restore them to a position where they could trade again. If we are lacking healthy competition it is because the government(s) vastly underestimated the size of the hole in the banks. They perpetuated one screw-up with another. They then brought in a bunch of further ham-fisted measures which have helped make sure that there won't be any foreign banks rushing to compete in the Irish market. The effort to rehabilitate the banks has been a dismal failure.

The PTSB CEO is entirely right to tell Noonan to get stuffed with his populist proposals. Let Noonan nationalise them or introduce a levy, and see how the banks' future saleability looks.

Click to expand...

So you're saying, effectively, even though the banks screwed up to such an extent that they had to come cap in hand to the citizens of the State to be rescued with billions out of the State's coffers, that the fault all lies with the Governments' ham-fisted attempts to rectify the situation?

No doubt there's plenty of blame to spread about in the whole mess but surely the bulk of people's annoyance is rightly directed at the reckless lending of the banks which largely created the problem!

I think it's an extraordinary statement of the CEO of PTSB to say in an Oireachtais committee meeting on the back of a huge bailout of public money and while the Minister for Finance is still the de facto owner of the institution that he'd "prefer if [the Minister for Finance] didn't ask me questions about the running of my organisation".

As Domhnall said above, how dare he.

Am astonished at your post dubnerd. And equally astonished that you "like" it, Sarenco and Rayn.

Youre entire post is written under the presumption that these banks should be dealt with as real, functioning, credible businesses. And that the regular rules of business apply here.
When they obviously don't. They are government supported institutions, and need to be reminded regularly of this fact.
I dont see Intel, or Pfizer or Open Hydro or HB Ice Cream receiving gigantic bailouts if they introduce and invest in a product which financially cripples them and renders them useless.

You seem to be suggesting that in order for Mr Noonan and the government to have any kind of credible say in the matter, they need to pump another XX Billion into the trough,
because the amount the banks told them they needed in the first place simply wasnt enough.

How "ham-fisted" of us to believe the banks back in 2008, when they provided us with the figures required in order to restore them to health.
And to think we are now asking them to regulate their rates so that the very people who saved them arent asked to fund their current profits.
We're so ham fisted, we really are.

With all due respect, wake up and smell the coffee here. Stop trying to apply real world logic to an obviously basket-case scenario.

regards
D

D O'S, this site is full of wind up merchants who think the banks can do no wrong, while they don't even have mortgages, just ignore them.

yes it seems...

are they plants? or just nothing better to do with their time???

jathclare said:

D O'S, this site is full of wind up merchants who think the banks can do no wrong, while they don't even have mortgages, just ignore them.

Click to expand...

It should no longer amaze me ,but does,when I hear Bank Defenders..

Banks have been well proven as thieves in too many instances ,yet people still trust their bona-fides?
Please , I do not want to hear the justification brigade on my case.

What other industry would be permitted the persistence of Bank dubious antics over the years ?

Mr Noonan et all ,will make mealy mouthed waffling about sorting , whilst ensuring OUR Banks screw us and then are sold to ensure all future profits go to those nice people, Mr Market and Mr Competition.

Domhnall O'Sullivan said:

Am astonished at your post dubnerd. And equally astonished that you "like" it, Sarenco and Rayn.

Youre entire post is written under the presumption that these banks should be dealt with as real, functioning, credible businesses. And that the regular rules of business apply here.
When they obviously don't. They are government supported institutions, and need to be reminded regularly of this fact.
I dont see Intel, or Pfizer or Open Hydro or HB Ice Cream receiving gigantic bailouts if they introduce and invest in a product which financially cripples them and renders them useless.

You seem to be suggesting that in order for Mr Noonan and the government to have any kind of credible say in the matter, they need to pump another XX Billion into the trough,
because the amount the banks told them they needed in the first place simply wasnt enough.

How "ham-fisted" of us to believe the banks back in 2008, when they provided us with the figures required in order to restore them to health.
And to think we are now asking them to regulate their rates so that the very people who saved them arent asked to fund their current profits.
We're so ham fisted, we really are.

With all due respect, wake up and smell the coffee here. Stop trying to apply real world logic to an obviously basket-case scenario.

regards
D

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I have no idea why our Government decided to recapitalize PTSB and I certainly didn't agree with that decision. But, having done so, I am very keen for the current Government to "follow the money" and extract as much value as possible from PTSB for the Irish tax payer - money that could be spent on cutting taxes and/or improving public services.

I don't want our Government to own or control a large chunk of our banking sector for any longer than is absolutely necessary. I happen to believe in free, competitive markets and, like it or not, banks are a critical component of any functioning economy.

Jeremy Marsding was appointed CEO of PTSB in 2012 following a (somewhat controversial) banking career in the UK. He was given a pretty simple mandate - turn PTSB around and sell it to the highest bidder. As far as I can tell he is doing a pretty good job of discharging that mandate. If the Minister disagrees, he can exercise his shareholding rights to remove the Board and appoint whoever he wants as CEO. Until he does that, he should just let the CEO get on with his job.

The recent meeting between the Minister and the executives of the main banks was nothing more than a photo opportunity. Naked political posturing.

Obviously you don't have to agree with anything I have set out above but I hope you will agree that the very fact that we are free to express our opinions is a good thing.

Incidentally, I absolutely hate the PTSB adds with the cartoon characters. Do banks really think we are that gullible to think that they simply have their customers interests at heart? Banks are businesses, they're supposed to create value for their shareholders - the largest of which in PTSB's case happens to be the Irish taxpayer.

ok Sarenco thanks for your explanation..
but I have to say I disagree whole heartedly.

the argument that "banks need to be let work as functioning commercial entities in a free market environment"
just simply doesnt wash any more....

their health and the economies health are too enmeshed for the normal rules of business to apply.

If the normal rules of business applied, then they would have failed catastrophically after their introduction of the monumentally flawed tracker mortgage product.
Many companies in other sectors have failed because they over-extended themselves, launched poorly designed products, allowed their short term greed to cloud their vision.
Those companies live or die by those decisions...... they operate in the "real mans" business world...

what happens to the banks when they make these same mistakes?? Nothing.

The boss of PTSB likes to talk big and posture, giving the impression he has a tough job running a hard nosed business. Thats all true as long as hes making profit - no problem with the normal rules of business there. But lets say for example they run into loss, maybe they invent some other disastrous financial product which happens to backfire badly and they incur terrible losses. Then ok yes on a personal level he may lose his job, but the company will continue in some form or another, and for sure the losses he has accrued will be passed on, and the burden will again fall on the usual sub-groups - the taxpayer, the SVR holders, various other customers.

Please tell me, what other business group on this planet lives with this luxury??? absolutely none. were Toyota able to slap a 1000 dollar levy on every toyota owner to compensate for their losses when they had that massive recall a few years ago?.

so can people please stop pretending that these institutions should be allowed to function and operate as normal commercial entities. They are not - surely we all understand that now. They have to be regulated, constantly and relentlessly... and they have to obey, because ultimately, theyre not really businesses...theyre more institutional

Domhnall O'Sullivan said:

ok Sarenco thanks for your explanation..
but I have to say I disagree whole heartedly.

the argument that "banks need to be let work as functioning commercial entities in a free market environment"
just simply doesnt wash any more....

their health and the economies health are too enmeshed for the normal rules of business to apply.

If the normal rules of business applied, then they would have failed catastrophically after their introduction of the monumentally flawed tracker mortgage product.
Many companies in other sectors have failed because they over-extended themselves, launched poorly designed products, allowed their short term greed to cloud their vision.
Those companies live or die by those decisions...... they operate in the "real mans" business world...

what happens to the banks when they make these same mistakes?? Nothing.

The boss of PTSB likes to talk big and posture, giving the impression he has a tough job running a hard nosed business. Thats all true as long as hes making profit - no problem with the normal rules of business there. But lets say for example they run into loss, maybe they invent some other disastrous financial product which happens to backfire badly and they incur terrible losses. Then ok yes on a personal level he may lose his job, but the company will continue in some form or another, and for sure the losses he has accrued will be passed on, and the burden will again fall on the usual sub-groups - the taxpayer, the SVR holders, various other customers.

Please tell me, what other business group on this planet lives with this luxury??? absolutely none. were Toyota able to slap a 1000 dollar levy on every toyota owner to compensate for their losses when they had that massive recall a few years ago?.

so can people please stop pretending that these institutions should be allowed to function and operate as normal commercial entities. They are not - surely we all understand that now. They have to be regulated, constantly and relentlessly... and they have to obey, because ultimately, theyre not really businesses...theyre more institutional

Click to expand...

Thanks for your detailed response.

I suppose this debate really turns on whether you take the view that free agents, motivated by profit, are best placed to decide who can access credit and on what terms or whether you take the view that these decisions should be left to politicians and their functionaries.

If you take the view that the later is preferable then you have to accept that all decisions as to who gets to buy a house or what businesses get funded will ultimately be political in nature. You may well be comfortable with that but I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that I would find that problematic.

I agree that the socialisation of bank debts by our politicians was sickening so I suspect we can find common ground on that point.

Folks

If a poster posts meaningless and personalised rubbish, please do not indulge it by responding to it. As Delboy has pointed out, one of his threads was already closed for a complete failure to back up his assertions.

Ignore such stuff. If you can't ignore it, report it. But by responding to it, you take the thread off topic and then I have to read through a lot of rubbish to sort out the thread.

Brendan

Sarenco said:

Thanks for your detailed response.

I suppose this debate really turns on whether you take the view that free agents, motivated by profit, are best placed to decide who can access credit and on what terms or whether you take the view that these decisions should be left to politicians and their functionaries.

If you take the view that the later is preferable then you have to accept that all decisions as to who gets to buy a house or what businesses get funded will ultimately be political in nature. You may well be comfortable with that but I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that I would find that problematic.

I agree that the socialisation of bank debts by our politicians was sickening so I suspect we can find common ground on that point.

Click to expand...

Thanks Brendan, not sure if youre referring to my posts which you deleted earlier on the other thread there? but I would consider the thrust of them to have certainly been on topic.

Regarding this thread, I actually started it, so hopefully you'll allow this post through?
In this thread, my posts are outlining why I feel its totally unacceptable for a banking excutive of PTSB to request that the minister, "please does not interfere with the running of my business"

@ Sarenco,

Thanks for the explanation. But no, Im afraid I still cant find the common ground there.

I just cannot understand why people insist that for banks to function as commercial entities, then there cannot be even the slightest hint of regulation of any description.
We were consistently told in the early 2000's that the relaxation of the rule relating to multiples of salary (no more than 3 times salary etc) simply HAD to be allowed.
Why? Because otherwise we were medling with ways of the free market. It was tantamount to socialism.

But, take for example the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s. The banks would not lend more than 3 or so times salary (+0.5 times spouses salary).
They did this as a matter of "good practice", and it worked. The interplay between banks, government and borrowers worked.
As soon as this practice stopped, the trouble started.
The tracker mortgages etc, leave all that to one side, they are all just consequences of that decision to ignore the multiples of salary rule.

So please answer me this. Why, for example, can that not be set down as a RULE which is vigorously regulated and enforced. And some other key rules also.
And then the banks are free to operate within those parameters?
Why do some people always insist "no, you cannot put any limitiations - only the market can dictate what these entities are and arent allowed to do"
Other industries are subject to regulations which ensure "best practice", for example CO2 emmisions, carbon footprints, amount of credit that car manufacturers can offer , etc

To tie this back to the original post, then with all that in mind, how dare the PTSB boss reques that we stop interfering in how he runs his business...

Domhnall

Just to be clear, I have absolutely no problem with any regulations that are intended to safeguard our financial system or to enhance consumer protection.

A good recent example is the Central Bank's LTV and LTI requirements that restrict the amount that can be advanced by way of a home loan (and it is certainly a pity that these requirements were not introduced 20 years ago). I have also advocated the introduction of an overall cap on mortgage rates on various threads as a consumer protection measure.

However, once a lender (or anybody else for that matter) is operating within the law and all applicable regulations then they should be permitted to carry out their business without political interference. You obviously disagree with this point of view.

OK.

I would agree some regulations are required so that the ground rules are known, and then within that the CEOs and banks should be allowed to operate freely
as commercial entities.

but these regulations are not yet in place, and any time they are mentioned there is usually a chorus of "we cannot restrain the banks, fully free market conditions must prevail", etc..
which I feel is a total red herring. of course we can have rules and regulations. lots of other industries do.

Until the correct regulations are in place, I think the bank has a responsibility to discuss its operations with the government, who are a major stakeholder, both
in terms of ownership, and also in terms of customers. I think it should be mandatory, until things are proven to be "working".

cheers
d

The Central Bank's LTV/LTI restrictions have been in place since February.

What new regulations do you want to see?