12 thoughts on “New Central Bank Strategy for Banking Supervision”

  1. From Mr. Brady’s speech:
    “If our proposals are not appropriate, we need to understand the reason why they are not appropriate. If our proposals are not practicable, we need to know the reason why they are not practicable. If our proposals lack balance, we need to know the reason why they lack balance. Importantly, on any or all of these issues we need to know not only what you think won’t work, but also your proposals for what will work. We will publish all comments received on our consultation papers so that all stakeholders will know how our policies have been informed and formulated.”

    A huge step forward if this is the case. I proposed before that each government department should operate their own forum and I think it would be appropriate for the Central Bank and the FR to do the same. Open-ness has many forms. One of them is the ability to make ‘anonymous’ suggestions or criticisms…

  2. It’ll be ineresting to see where the lending limits to mortgage customers will fall. Currently at 5 times income, a reduction to 3.5/4 times would mean further falls, maybe even Morgan Kelly type falls, in the property market.

    Which is good news if you care about Irish competivness and you don’t already own a house. It also might mean an end to the most popular kind of ‘investment’. I wonder where professionals will invest their money going forward. Imagine an Ireland where being a part time landlord was not the aspiration of every 2nd professional you met. That’s an Ireland I want to be a part off.

    Though of course It would also mean that NAMA will loose us a pretty penny. Thanks God the minister had the good since not to use real money for it and only promisary notes otherwise we’d really be in trouble.

  3. very long on BS, very short on how the regulators themselves will be regulated…. a typical empire building document that could be produced by bureaucrats anywhere, use any crisis as an opportunity to get more power and more people.

    How will corrupt and/or incompetent regulators be exposed and dealt with? Or is the theory that once you become a regulator, you become infallible and immune to corruption?

    What standards will be enforced on regulatory staff? Or companies who provide professional services to regulatory bodies? Surely not the same which applied when Paddy Neary & co were busy covering up Anglos insolvency and in the process deceiving shareholders and the markets?

    I would submit to Mr. Brady the balance should be that regulators should be themselves personally accountable and liable.

  4. 1300 already ‘working’/employed and now looking for another 200 !!!
    GREAT LITTLE COUNTRY!!!

  5. Will all phone calls and offices of the regulators be recorded?

    Will regulators be sacked for failing?

    Will banks lose their licence, for failing to obey the rules?

    Will we have many small, unlimited banks, all partnerships?

    How will they address the OPM problem?

    Banks without licences are also capable of being chain letters or pyramid schemes or Ponzi schemes. The purpose of regulation is to ensure that the amount of funds lost is nil. When licenced, these become banks and are regulated, and are automatically too big ever to be punished. Remember that the Revenue Commissioners decided that the DPP should not proceed with any prosecution of a well known bank for their widely publicised tax evasion schemes sold to their clients. A bank has to launder funds for mass murderers before it will be sanctioned……

    Banks that do their job well, will find that they are running out of capital for lending and they will approach the wholsale market for short term funds in order to lend long…. Then when they have enabled any and all to have borrowed, the economy collapses!

    But no one will have broken any rules if it is properly regulated….. The problem is not actually the lack of regulation, it is the purpose of banks: lending is bad for the economy! If an activity is good business, it generates its own cash flow and allows natural expansion. Otherwise you buy a bank manager and lever yourself into bankruptcy!

  6. Won’t work, unless they get rid of the giant elephant in the room, the ponzi scheme called fractional reserved banking.

  7. As an add on, you can bring in all the regualtions you want. AIG had something like 200 indpendent bodies keeping a watch on it and they all failed spectacularly as we now know.

    This is a little story about four regulators named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

    There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

    Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

    Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody’s job.

    Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it.

    It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done

  8. @All

    There has been substantial change in the Financial Regulator following the banking debacle. There has been change at the executive level of the Banks and lesser change on the boards.
    What change has there been at the operational level of the CB, apart from Dr. H. Similarly, what change has there been at the board level of the CB,following the debacle?

    Are these the right people to decide what the new strategy on regualtion should be?

  9. Mossy
    It is worse than that! Very funny by the way and educational for many.

    This was deliberately TIMED! They did not want it in 1999. Had that happened Ireland would have reacted and we would be sad but not as sad as this. They decided to steal all savings and future taxes, by gguaranteeing bank lending to people who could not afford to rent the homes they “bought”, in the USA. That kept the party going long enough to get the Europeans to donate!

    Suckers!

Comments are closed.