Domhnall O'Sullivan
Registered User
- Messages
- 20
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?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.
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.
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
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?