‘Anglo 10’ plan known to regulator

[tonic]

This is dead money - never to be seen again

The Regulator's involvement is ... interesting

‘Anglo 10’ plan known to regulator - Sunday Times


We already knew the Regulator was watching the Sean Quinn overhang, indeed that was their job, the key question is: had they knowledge that Anglo was going to offer loans to investors to remove the overhang ? Following from that: were they aware the loans were to have no security and be "non recourse" ?

cYp

There's nothing in the article to show that they had knowledge of the "10" deal or that the loans were non recourse. The regulator's office has said that they were not aware, time and documents will tell.

[PaddyJoe McGillycuddy]

There's nothing in the article to show that they had knowledge of the "10" deal or that the loans were non recourse. The regulator's office has said that they were not aware, time and documents will tell.

Except for this bit I suppose:

Internal documents from the bank show that over a four-month period in 2008, Pat Neary, the then financial regulator, and his staff were kept abreast of the plan to reduce a secret 28% shareholding held by the insurance tycoon.

Just days before the bank lent €500m to 10 of its most highly-regarded clients to buy almost one-third of the stake controlled by Quinn, David Drumm, Anglo’s chief executive, sent an email to a colleague saying that the regulator was “squared”. Other documents refer to John Hurley, the then Central Bank governor, being briefed on Quinn’s massive exposure to the bank.

[mollox]

Non-recourse - but with limits.
Were not the "Golden" 10 exposed to losses of several million each?
It certainly smacks of a share support scheme, but it didn't work out to the benefit of the investors.

[tonic]

Except for this bit I suppose:

What kind of thought process do you have there?

The article refers to an email from one head to some other head telling the second head that a third head was "squared", whatever that means.

It is known that the regulator was aware of the Quinn situation and that Anglo were trying to do something about it, but there is nothing in the article to say that the regulator knew that the shares were being placed with 10 bank customers and that the deal was being largely financed, non recourse or otherwise by Anglo itself. That is the issue that is in dispute, not whether the regulator knew some of Quinn’s shares were being sold off.

[Mitsui2]

How could the Minister of Finance at the time have been unaware of this?

What makes you think he was?

[Dreaded_Estate]

Non-recourse - but with limits.
Were not the "Golden" 10 exposed to losses of several million each?
It certainly smacks of a share support scheme, but it didn't work out to the benefit of the investors.

What did they lose exactly?

[Dreaded_Estate]

There's nothing in the article to show that they had knowledge of the "10" deal or that the loans were non recourse. The regulator's office has said that they were not aware, time and documents will tell.

What are you basing this claim on tonic?

[Dreaded_Estate]

I think the Anglo 10 deal was small fry compared to the ILP/Anglo transaction.

But the real question is was the DoF made aware of these arrangements.

[anewbeginning]

So the Regulator approved a deal where Anglo would lend money to people to buy shares in Anglo?

If so then that is an extremely dodgy deal.

And given that those who received the money were closely aligned with FF, and the deal was extremely dodgy and approved by the 'regulator', does anyone else see the fingerprints of Fianna Fail all over it?

[FakeViking]

The real question is (apologies for the Coughlanism): why is the taxpayer (and a generation of future ones) paying for the gambling debts of these chancers?