Key Post An open letter to Shane Ross

I had not seen this post before. It did not surprise me in the least. I was constantly astounded at how Shane Ross managed to wipe without trace many of his past utterances on how the staid B of I was being surpassed by the "superstars" of Anglo and Irish Natiowide.
He has since reinvented himself as crusader against all banks, with no hard questions ever asked on his historic utterances and writings. Just shows how easy it is to fool the public by simply donning new clothes to suit the occasions!!
 
I find him to be a populist nowadays; he's attending anti-water charges meets, and is pro whatever is populist at the time. It's a shame because he's made some good points in the past but it's hard to take anything he says seriously now. He's got no credibility.
 
Generally I like his pieces in the Sindo, I would not damn him for misjudgments in the past, we all make them, I'd rather have him in the media making his own style of contribution rather than never being heard.

Time to move on I think.
 
Palerider said:
Generally I like his pieces in the Sindo, I would not damn him for misjudgments in the past, we all make them, I'd rather have him in the media making his own style of contribution rather than never being heard.

Time to move on I think.
Click to expand...

I would be inclined to agree except I saw he was pushing quite a few candidates in the Locals - two of which hadn't a breeze about their area. They were clueless about their own area. Them, being amateurs I didn't mind - but why was he endorsing them ? (Struck me as self-serving)
 
We all get some things wrong. But Fingers was clearly unfit for purpose, but Ross continued to laud him. How or why did he miss that?

I was wrong in saying that Irish banks were safe and were well regulated. It did appear that they were.

But look at the rest of the interview:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=1009150&postcount=14

Irish banks are regulated, but not guaranteed - that is a clear distinction.
If a bank is badly managed, it should be allowed to fail.
The deposit guarantee should not be increased from €20k. Someone will have to pay for the increase.
And in a few years time, we will look back and wonder why we did not stuff our boots with bank and other shares. - ISEQ Overall Index is up 40% in the 5 years and 8 months since.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
We all get some things wrong. But Fingers was clearly unfit for purpose, but Ross continued to laud him. How or why did he miss that?
Click to expand...
Fair enough -- Shane Ross should explain why he's never retracted his comments.

Brendan Burgess said:
I was wrong in saying that Irish banks were safe and were well regulated. It did appear that they were.

But look at the rest of the interview:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=1009150&postcount=14

Irish banks are regulated, but not guaranteed - that is a clear distinction.
If a bank is badly managed, it should be allowed to fail.
The deposit guarantee should not be increased from €20k. Someone will have to pay for the increase.
Click to expand...
Kudos for the recommendations, I agree with them although they're a matter of opinion. And there may have been no way of knowing that Irish bank regulation was beyond incompetent, to the point of being non-existent. (Although, then one shouldn't be asserting that all was well).

Brendan Burgess said:
And in a few years time, we will look back and wonder why we did not stuff our boots with bank and other shares. - ISEQ Overall Index is up 40% in the 5 years and 8 months since.
Click to expand...
Yes, but Bank of Ireland, for example is still down 94% from that date, and that's after the 160% increase that Wilbur Ross cashed in on. The banks were completely holed below the waterline (and some still are for that matter).

Anyway, I didn't mean to finger point, just to point out that the landscape has changed beyond recognition from those days. Nowadays I would treat statements about Irish commerce and the Irish economy from anybody, no matter who they were, with the deepest suspicion. I think the days of trusting any individual on the strength of reputation are long over. I'd treat Shane Ross as just another talking head. (In fact, the advantage of a site like askaboutmoney.com is not access to particular "experts" but to a plurality of opinion and experience -- multiple points of view are better than one, but none is sacrosanct).
 
Kildavin said:
I would be inclined to agree except I saw he was pushing quite a few candidates in the Locals - two of which hadn't a breeze about their area. They were clueless about their own area. Them, being amateurs I didn't mind - but why was he endorsing them ? (Struck me as self-serving)
Click to expand...

And the experts in Government and the Dept of Finance and the central bank were not amateurs and look where that got us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top