Does the government need to recapitalize Irish banks?

1. Sell off the insurance part of their business, in many cases this will raise more money than their current market capitalisation (In Irish Life's case, probably at least 3 times it!)
I think you will find that the book value of life subs are already contributing more to the regulator's calculation of capital than could possibly be realised in a sale.
 
I've sort of avoided these discussions over the last couple of weeks. I've pretty much said my piece regarding the worthlessness of the guarantee to support the Irish banking system here at length quite a while back. I don't like saying "I told you so" but I told you so!

But I'd like to correct what seems a misunderstanding concerning the state of BOI in particular and Brendan's interpretation of the results it announced. Yes, they posted decent profits (700m) for the first half and so you might think that all they need to do is sit tight, pay no dividends and soon their equity will be restored. Unfortunately part of the announcement was that they are expecting ZERO profits for the second part of the year. Now I think it's fair to say, the way the economy is going, that they could very easily be facing large losses next year. So their meagre capital cushion is likely to be eroded going forwards. And the markets recognise this hence the share price collapse.

I can't believe that I haven't heard a single representative of the industry mention improving profitability (i.e. cutting costs). Unless this happens putting government equity into these banks may well be a waste.
 
Firstly disclosure, I have shares in BOI worth at this stage a weekend in cork (probobley not including spending money!)

Have been reading all these posts and pretty much feel that whatever is going to happen needs to happen soon.

Everybody else seems to be going down the capitalisation route very quickly to shore up the craters in the bankings systems, I dont understand why we are not. Im not debating whether or not its the perfect way to sort out the existing economic problems in this country, but I havent heard a better alternative that can be implemented sooner rather then later.

How long more can we deliberate over what we should do and at what cost will delaying a decision have on our economy?


I was discussing this topic with somebody today and Unless I am extremely mistaken the following is blatently evident and needs to be sorted:

1. Bank Bosses cannot be trusted. They appear to be sending out signals that totally contradict what we already know. Their only interest appears to be not capitalising for the self interests of those with the most to loose (ie. the bigwig corporates who always looks after their own selfish interests).

2.Ireland does not need as many banks as it currently has, some should be forced to merge under current economic circumstances. Worry about competition when the economy is back on track.

3. The government doesnt really know what its going to do or it doesnt know how to tell us. Lack of leadership and transparency has only further scared the average Joe Public (sounds familiar!).

4. Whatever happens the working class will end up footing a majority of the bill.

Personally I feel the whole Banking sector needs to be disected and rebuilt from scratch. Issues about regulation can be sorted when they are rummaging through the remains of whats left after this knightmare. Heads should role regarding the regulation of the Banks but thats for another day . . . Im surprised nobody here has mentioned the Finnish banking system that had to totally rebuild itself in the 1990's after a very similar situation happened to their banking system.

Seems to me like we are being held to randsom by the banks at the moment. Could they be putting pressure on the Govt to agree to certain terms (eg bonus's, certain regulatory concessions etc) before being capitalised or is it a case that our government are just dithering over what to do ?

With regards to the Govt buying up a bank (AIB or BOI preferably), does it not make sense overall? I mean banks invariably make money as they charge us for putting money in, taking money out, leaving money in and make money on our money. This isnt even going into the other services banks make money on and is keeping my point very simple (I know there are more dynamics involved but bear with me).

I could never understand why the government contracted out companies for toll roads, giving them the rights to own the tolls (especially considering the profits that these tollbridges make). I understand the concept behind state sponcored bodies and holding onto industrys that are in the publics interests, but surely that doesnt mean that they cant hold onto companies or industries that make money? Surely there is a competitive friendly way of our government making money out of corporate investments? Getting back to the point, why cant the government capitalise one specific bank or do what Brendan suggested and setup its own bank?

In theory and keeping things on a simpler note, if it is true that Anglo are the ones whom are most exposed (in terms of bad debts and how they loaned money to builders), then why shouldnt they be left with the worst terms of the Government bailout (and/or eventual capitalisation) whether it be by forced merger or no capitalisation. Surely making an example of at least one bank would send out a signal of intent (ie repurcussions for actions) which has been all to invisible up until now. Im not saying we should let them goto the wall but while there is a collective burden to be shared in the banking industry, why does this mean that every bank should get the same "bailout". Risk v Reward ! ! ! Whats fair about the Irish Public having to bail the banks out in the first place, what we want for our money shouldnt be about being fair on all banks but being selective on what suits us most . .

Finally, whats most important is that the government does what is best for the country, for the economy, nobody else. We are hearing of all sorts of taxes being put on cars, health, carparks etc. I dont mind being taxed up the ass once I am living in a fair economy that looks after all interests (not the interest of those at the top of the ladder). Banking has been riding the pigs back with no repurcussions up until the Sht finally hath hit the preverbial fan.

Me personally, While I dont understand all dynamics to the banking industry (and as far as competition acts go) I dont see why the government just doesnt have one bank. A central bank, owned and run by the public. The profits that some of these banks make are a fraction of our govts budget. Would you mind slightly higher bank charges & have no competition if it meant lower taxes and more money in the coffers for the government? But just as important it meant the heads of the bank were answerable to its public. Hey presto, confidence issues in the banking sector gone . .
 
I've sort of avoided these discussions over the last couple of weeks. I've pretty much said my piece regarding the worthlessness of the guarantee to support the Irish banking system here at length quite a while back. I don't like saying "I told you so" but I told you so!
Now darag, I agree you always opposed the guarantee scheme. The scheme achieved its aim of securing funding for Irish banks at no cost to taxpayers and did not lead to the sort of abuses you predicted.

Things have moved on. The issue now is who is going to take the risks of lending into a recessionary economy? It's starting to look like there is only one sucker of last resort - the taxpayer.
 
Now darag, I agree you always opposed the guarantee scheme. The scheme achieved its aim of securing funding for Irish banks at no cost to taxpayers and did not lead to the sort of abuses you predicted.
Au contraire Duke. I wonder will we ever agree on anything?

Things are happening pretty much exactly as I said it would. I said at the time that Anglo were a bust. The markets are have come to the same conclusion and are valuing it effectively at zero with a share price of 48c. (Remember they were around a fiver when I was ranting the last time.) Normally that would be the end of the road for a bank but because of the government guarantee they are able to keep digging by borrowing another billion. What is the justification for this bond issue? It does absolutely nothing for capital ratios. Perhaps Anglo have discovered a sure thing customer looking for a loan that is bound to make them a profit? Nonsense. No, this billion will be used to keep the show on the road for as long as possible. This is exactly the abuse I was talking about. When this billion is gone they'll borrow again but when the inevitable happens, the government will be left with the tab.

What I certainly didn't predict or imagine was that they'd be as brazen as this. It's actually disgraceful. The statement accompanying their annual results during the week shows the contempt with which they hold the public and the government with the soviet-style confident black-is-white proclamations. I would have at least expected them to announce some token austerity measures or something but no - they'll just keep going as long as possible without a single job being cut.

There is no way they should be allowed to issue bonds in their current state. Perhaps if they had announced massive job and cost cuts and a realistic plan to improve their balance sheet, it could be justified. Their lies are transparent to everyone; if anyone believed them (i.e. that they expect, by profit retention, to improve their tier 1 ratio and sort out their balance sheet), would they not snap them up? I mean they have 100 billion worth of assets and you could by the whole thing for 350million. It stinks worse than a barrel of old fish guts.
 
Back
Top