What seems bizzare is that those protesting about the takeover seem to want the State to put in the €50m but still leave the same people in charge. In comparison to Credit Union offices around the country, Newbridge seem to have invested millions into a plush office for its employees. And now that the value of the building has fallen (like most other properties) the CU refuses to write down the value of the building in its Accounts. That alone, apart from the apparent poor credit policy, justifies the decision to move the management.
The alternative is liquidation and how would protesters feel about that?
Why did the members in Newbridge who are now protesting not query the huge loans given to developers during the boom by their loans committee?
What route did Carlow and Bagenalstown take?Plenty of other CU's went that route. Look at Carlow and Bagenalstown!
Newbridge Credit Union is in some sort of trouble and we can argue about the severity of that trouble. But if the Central Bank's assessment is right, the members would have lost a large part of their savings. Of course, they are not at risk because of the government guarantee.At an impromptu meeting in the Kildare town’s community centre yesterday, [broken link removed] vowed to fight the takeover by Permanent TSB once it had sought legal advice based on Central Bank documentation. About 100 members showed up to vent their frustration at the [broken link removed] order.
Permanent TSB is receiving €53.9 million from the Credit Institutions Resolution Fund to make good on the losses incurred at Newbridge Credit Union. This transaction, approved by the High Court late on Sunday night, was made with the approval of Minister for Finance [broken link removed] following a request from the Central Bank.
While the fund was established in 2011 with a €250 million contribution from the Government, the money is recoupable from the financial sector via a levy.
The Central Bank did agree to indemnify Naas against losses from Newbrige. I am not sure of the mechanism, but I think it was from a direct input of cash.why didn't the central bank give the 53 million to Naas credit union to take over Newbridge.
Newbridge failed as a Credit Union and I think it's right to close it down. I would go further and say that the members should have lost their money, but that is not government policy.why not give Newbridge itself 53 million in return for a change of management
They tried to get Naas to take it over, but they refused. The CB had no other option.why restrict that choice to a failed bank taking over a credit union.
I suspect that it was ptsb who insisted on a figure this high.Who identified the figure of 53 million. Was it Newbridge, the Central bank, or did PTSB decide the figure. Did Naas know of the 53 million deficiet.
I heard somwhere that there was only €2m in excess of €100k. So most did take it out.If there is any individual, or institution that has more than 100K, than after all that has passed in the last 7 years, they are idiots.
If the government try this tack with my credit union, or my husband's we will move to another credit union.
The Central Bank did agree to indemnify Naas against losses from Newbrige. I am not sure of the mechanism, but I think it was from a direct input of cash.
Newbridge failed as a Credit Union and I think it's right to close it down. I would go further and say that the members should have lost their money, but that is not government policy.
I suspect that it was ptsb who insisted on a figure this high.
I heard somwhere that there was only €2m in excess of €100k. So most did take it out.
But if all the deposits in Newbridge went to Naas, it would cause huge problems for Naas.
Plenty of other CU's went that route. Look at Carlow and Bagenalstown!
Look at Rathfarnham CU. They must have been going for an award for the ugliest building of the year when they built that.
I presume that Naas and other local Credit Unions will accept them as members. But if all the deposits in Newbridge went to Naas, it would cause huge problems for Naas.
Many did, some very plush offices around the country!
Why was the court case heard in secret. If PTSB will be at zero loss from taking over the credit union, having been paid 53 million, why didn't the central bank give the 53 million to Naas credit union to take over Newbridge. Was the offer even on the table. And if not why not.
Alternatively why not give Newbridge itself 53 million in return for a change of management, those that mis managed shouldn't be rewarded and continue in a position of trust. Though as I write this I think of the bailed out banks, where plenty of management stayed in place or walked away with gold handshakes.
If the government was truly committed to choice for consumers, in banking, why restrict that choice to a failed bank taking over a credit union.
Who identified the figure of 53 million. Was it Newbridge, the Central bank, or did PTSB decide the figure. Did Naas know of the 53 million deficiet.
Someone mentioned if the CU went into liquidation that savers would lose out. But how so, what percentage of the savers would have more than 100K in savings in a single account. Anyone with that kind of money would have known about the rumours about this credit union for many months now and would have reduced their exposure to nil by bringing their saving to 100K. If there is any individual, or institution that has more than 100K, than after all that has passed in the last 7 years, they are idiots.
While talking about those with more than 100K. It's very odd, to me, that there would be a lot of people with such large lump sums in an institution that is known to have issues or even one where there are no issues. Surely at this stage there is nobody that keeps more than that in any one place.
If the government try this tack with my credit union, or my husband's we will move to another credit union. No way would I accept going to a bank. I cannot wait until the day I never have to deal with a bank again.
The point of credit unions as far as I can see is to give people who the banks have no interest in lending to access to credit, if you are not in that category then I can see how you would not understand what credit unions do. Admittedly some lost the run of themselves but there are still some very well run ones around that give a very valuable service.
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?