In theory i agree with you. But if Anglo had been left to fall then i am pretty confident that pretty much all the small banks would have gone and possible AIB and BOI.Originally Posted by Dreaded_Estate
Where would that leave us ?
Either way we are in a situation that we must deal with. We cannot let the banks fail.
Hard to know which is more objectionable - your arrogance or your ignorance.Ah, heres the other one, right on time. Did you manage to move your savings out of AIB shares yet?
Lets just call it a shareholders meeting and have done with it lads.
Sparkey already posted that he had no investments of any kind - which presumably means he doesn't own shares in the banks.
So you're calling him a liar now, aren't you?
We cannot let depositors lose their money. We cannot allow the SME sector to be deprived of credit. We most certainly can cover deposits with the good assets of the banks and wind up the rest as it suits us, we most certainly can supply the SME sector with credit from wherever the deposits end up.
Your objection that shareholders would lose out is immaterial; as I have said over and over again in this thread, they knew what they were doing when they invested in bank shares, nobody forced them to.
If the banks are able to stand on their own two feet let them. If they aren't they pay the price like any other business.
At least you have the courage to admit you were a shareholder, I'll give you that. Its more than cancelled out by the abuse, but sure what can you do.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
lol are you serious?
the risk? risk Vs still unknown guarantee cost?at the risk of starting all over again
wow. let's twiddle our thumbs and think about that one... shall we?
I guarantee that a team could be assembled and a new system up and running in 28 days. Prisoners will not be entertained.
You need to realise that the system is slowly seizing, If you are aware of that you need to be proactive NOT reactive.
MAN UP and join the winning team.
In 1998 practically all Russian banks and Russia itself declared default
In 2002 it was queue of investors, which wanted to invest into Russia
Investors have short memory and they are looking for place, which will give them maximum profit
They using word “reputation” only to get investments back
If Ireland will not repeat the same procedure of default very often, it will not much damage Ireland’s reputation
Once again I am not a shareholder.
My objection is not about shareholders loosing out. My objection is that you have not put any credible plan for when the banks do fail.
Sure you can protect the depositors but you cannot just take over the banks infrastructure without taking over their debts, at least not in the short term.
I am 100% serious.
The risk I referred to was the risk of getting into the same round about debate again which is what has just happened.
So taking you plan in 28 days you would have a new bank up and running.. For the sake of discussion lets assume that you can build an infrastructure and set it up in 28 days.
So for 28 days the country will have to survive with basically what cash people have in their pockets. Shops will not be able to pay bills so will not be able to reorder. Even if they could we couldn't buy anything as there would be no cash, no credit cars, no cheque clearing system or banks to write cheques on.
So what do you propose happens for 28 days ?
Their debts are the depositors, for the second time. You're looking at it like a householder, not a banker. There have already been a lot of proposals put forward in this thread and others as to how best to wind down the banks, all of which you have either roundly ignored or backed into your "b-but the shareholders" corner. And its fairly clear you aren't going to get out of that corner, for whatever reasons best known to yourself.
When it reaches the stage that a good slice of the GDP of the country is going to be handed over to keep commercial non governmental operations going, all bets are off, I would say.
If there are assets left over when the depositors are taken care of, and there is every reason to think that there will be since the banks were vastly leveraged, thats when upstream lenders and shareholders can be looked after. So relax, they aren't being robbed, just put second in line.
This is neccessary to prevent that run you were so afraid of.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What a nation of donkeys. They say Linehan is stupid but yet he is smart enough to convince everyone to pay off 80 billion that someone else borrowed.
As Bormotello points out default is the way to go.
I hate to be the giver of bad news but Linehan cares about the creditors. He does not give a dog's dinner to ye mugs that voted for him. A good shafting is what ye deserve
Then why didnt you just agree to my plan?
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote