The short answer is no.
The long answer is...no.
There is something which I just don't understand and people have not been able to explain it to me. We have come through around 10 years of unprecedented economic growth. Businesses have made huge amounts of profits and generated huge amounts cash.
Some businesses have held on to these profits to fund them through the bad times.
Other businesses have
1) either not been profitable during a boom
2) have been profitable but have squandered the cash
<snip>
Granted you have done the research Brendan, even if only anecdotally and perhaps with a less that relevant population number, but I accept what you say.
However you forget two other kinds of businesses.
3) developers who rolled their profits over into purchasing land banks at what now seem to be extortionate prices or into developments affected by the crisis - there was a programme late last year that detailed at least two first time developers who were caught like this and say their equity acquired over many years in other businesses vanish. The money originally came from well-run businesses.
4) people who traded profitably and well, not extravagantly and who put their money [unwisely in retrospect] into Bank shares, Blue Chip Investments, or property to avail of double digit growth to maximise their returns, only to see their investment obliterated. There is no suggestion their money came from anything other than well-run businesses.
Neither of these accord with the stereotype of the profligate spender, although I accept some were. There was a strongly expressed opinion last night on Frontline - that was not contested by the government representative - that banks were not lending.
The government representative admitted as much and when Kenny closely questioned him as when they would start lending he answered
" ... sometime this year."
That, quite frankly, isn't good enough - not by a long shot.
That doesn't square with ISME's 50% comment or the comments from the accountant's you spoke to and it was made on the national carrier, so I assume if a well-prepared government representative was aware of even anecdotal evidence supporting your comments above, he would have made the case your research reflected - he didn't.
So if, by the admission of the government representative, and based on questions thrown up by a team of expert researchers, the banks have no money to lend - what's to be done?
Continue to fix the broken banks, to reach some arbitrary capital ratio designed to cater for normal levels of runs on deposits in normal times?
We're not in normal times, Brendan, and the attempts to re-capitalise as opposed to lend funding businesses and raising the level of transactions is what's holding back our recovery.
Nor do I think its fair to go from a torrent of credit to a drip for private purposes, so long as people are able to pay back their loans.
I accept we've seen a few instances of overstretched credit ratings here and on other websites, but I have heard several anecdotes of people with normal/good current cash flow not being able to get car loans, last year for example.
In one case it was a business person with an excellent credit rating who couldn't get a car loan. He could get a loan to extend his property, but not to replace his car. Utter nonsense in the context.
Then there are the people I've spoken with this year in networking meetings and functions. Two people confirmed they'd love to go forward with extensions to their property but can't arrange finances.
So I'm saying that while you may have some anecdotal evidence to support bank lending - and I have to admit our our bank is very supportive of our office - the show last night really affected me, presenting as it did the widely held opinion, not refuted, that banks aren't lending - yet!
My understanding of the gist of the comments from the government representative was that it would take time to bring them back to a level of capitalisation - involving the injection of many more billions of Euros from either the taxpayer or private investors, that lending would only be beginning this year, and would not be up and running for another couple of years.
So if we have three years to wait for credit we won't see a recovery this side of 2013 and possibly 2015 - and that's unacceptable.
We need credit to start flowing now, and not be putting fig leaves on banks who were part and parcel of the profligacy that went on.
In the words of one banker I know "we went from lending money, to selling money - that's where we went wrong."
I'm nut suggesting a return to profligate spending with no checks and balances - OTC I think that banks customer relations managers should take a far more pro-active and invasive role in relation to the monies they lend, resist lump sum handovers, encourage staged drawdowns and payments and at all times minimize the banks and their customers exposure to the negative effects of being in a loan or credit-supported situation.
But the fact is people do need credit, not least because they haven't been paid for services they have rendered or goods they have supplied.
Builders are underbidding to get tenders, knowingly intending not to pay certain suppliers to break even.
Clients are refusing to honour fee agreements and themselves have gone bust owning millions.
Look at the situation Traynor O'Toole architects ended up in last month. This may well be repeated across the architectural profession, where both award winning practices and tight commercial concerns are suffering.
So when I say that finance isn't available its not off the top of my head and when I suggest a new commercial lending bank its not because I believe the banks will recover or are recovering to what is needed.
We probably need 60Bn in deposits to fund a minimum of 30Bn in lending according to one source - I'm not dropping names.
But if we have zero or next to zero billions, then even one new lending institution with no strings attached will prosper and help the economy to grow. The big banks will eventually over take it [and possibly overtake it], but the trickle of credit it supplies will help us move forward in the short term and offer hope to potential borrowers to keep going through this.
And of course once its built up a network of say 50 or so outlets, it becomes a national footprint and that might attract some foreign investors to a small bank going places.
Regardless of what transpires, all it not as well as your accountants make out Brendan, and someone needs to be seen to be doing something effective, and soon.
FWIW
ONQ.