I can’t add anything to Jagdip’s analysis here but in case you’d missed it, here‘s the European Commission’s March 31 letter to the Irish government on the plans it had submitted at that point for Anglo Irish Bank.
10 replies on “March 31 Commission Letter on Anglo”
Great work done by both Jagdip and the Commission.
If Anglo has no future as a going concern, what is the next step. Presumably it will be put into an orderly run off and losses bourn by the owner of the equity (us) and the subordinated debt.
‘Ordinary’ shareholders in Anglo are still waiting for the appointment of an Assessor. On the one hand, everyone supporting NAMA from the Minister downwards, claim that Anglo will be made into a success story – after €22.5 billion is injected – subordinated bond holders (many connected with pension funds) are told they’ll looked after – even those who sold at a 40% discount are getting something back – while on the other hand, the same worthies completely ignore the impact of Anglo’s nationalization on the citizen shareholder. There is complete official unwillingness to accept the implications of misleading Anglo accounting information for small investors. Most small investors use the information in the public domain to frame their decisions. I have never once heard Dukes admit that something must be done on this front.
Only in a tribal plutocracy (do I mean kleptocracy?) could such a immoral position rest easy with those in power. Compensate all the big power players and wielders of influence but as for redressing wrongs inflicted on small investors, that’s childish innocence at play. I have complained about this to Almunia’s cabinet and I am raising the issue again at present now that the ‘new’ Anglo plan is one the table.
@The alchemist
I have about 95,000 reasons to agree with you about Anglo shareholders being deceived for 8 years with the connivance of the authorities, but the news yesterday that Bradford and Bingley shareholders are getting nothing should be the final nail in the coffin of hope that we would at least get the closing shareprice on the day prior to nationalisation.
This document should be used as reference material in the promised review of the DoF.
Mandarins or munchkins?
From bullet point 105 (page 20) to 123 (page 23) makes you wonder what sort of childish submission was sent regarding New Bank/Auld Anglo.
No short – no projected P&L statements and stresses, daft profit projects, funding dependent on on-going gov support and maintaining current sov rating, on-going exposure to areas Anglo haven’t been good at lending to and a general sense of panic over the vague plans to enter a new lending area.
I think it’s time to ringfence my savings.
I despair of even bringing in outsiders.
Mike Aynsley at Anglo seems to think that it is part of his job to defend the repuation of its former chairman and other directors in order to minimise repuational damage to Anglo.
Probably the best reason to close Anglo is that it has no reputation to defend so notwithstanding any numbers that are dressed up as a business plan, common sense says that this bank has no future.
The sooner we recognise that fact, the sooner we stop paying money to people to bring in new business.
So we airily told to disregard the old Anglo business plan as history.
Reminds me of Nixon’s press secretary telling us that all previous statements were inoperative.
Dukes and Anysley believed until the day before Terrible Tuesday (last March) that the writedown for Anglo transfers to NAMA would be 28% rather than the 50%+.
A mere 10,000,000,000.00 mistake.
And we expect these people to come up with a new credible business plan.
I think they better tell the EU that the dog ate the latest one.
@Maurice O’Leary
I agree entirely with your last comment. It seems at times that theme park banking has taken over wherein people act out roles in a make-believe bank that has no obligation reality. Perhaps the people at Family Guy might take a look if they run short of script material.
Mary Wilson questioned Dukes a few days ago about the likely shape of the next tranche of loans passing from Anglo into NAMA. He apologized for not answering her questions as he didn’t have the spreadsheet in front of him.
What exactly are the responsibilities of ‘public interest’ appointees?
@ alchemist
What exactly are the responsibilities of ‘public interest’ appointees?
a) to represent the interests of the public
That’s what we learn in second level ‘civics’ class
b) to articulate the interests of that part of the political/social system in which they have direct or indirect stake
That’s what we learn from the science of political economy
How long did it take for it to be accepted that the earth goes around the sun ?
The scientific conclusion (b) is liable to make the citizens more ornery. Tough. They’ll get used to it.
10 replies on “March 31 Commission Letter on Anglo”
Great work done by both Jagdip and the Commission.
If Anglo has no future as a going concern, what is the next step. Presumably it will be put into an orderly run off and losses bourn by the owner of the equity (us) and the subordinated debt.
‘Ordinary’ shareholders in Anglo are still waiting for the appointment of an Assessor. On the one hand, everyone supporting NAMA from the Minister downwards, claim that Anglo will be made into a success story – after €22.5 billion is injected – subordinated bond holders (many connected with pension funds) are told they’ll looked after – even those who sold at a 40% discount are getting something back – while on the other hand, the same worthies completely ignore the impact of Anglo’s nationalization on the citizen shareholder. There is complete official unwillingness to accept the implications of misleading Anglo accounting information for small investors. Most small investors use the information in the public domain to frame their decisions. I have never once heard Dukes admit that something must be done on this front.
Only in a tribal plutocracy (do I mean kleptocracy?) could such a immoral position rest easy with those in power. Compensate all the big power players and wielders of influence but as for redressing wrongs inflicted on small investors, that’s childish innocence at play. I have complained about this to Almunia’s cabinet and I am raising the issue again at present now that the ‘new’ Anglo plan is one the table.
@The alchemist
I have about 95,000 reasons to agree with you about Anglo shareholders being deceived for 8 years with the connivance of the authorities, but the news yesterday that Bradford and Bingley shareholders are getting nothing should be the final nail in the coffin of hope that we would at least get the closing shareprice on the day prior to nationalisation.
This document should be used as reference material in the promised review of the DoF.
Mandarins or munchkins?
From bullet point 105 (page 20) to 123 (page 23) makes you wonder what sort of childish submission was sent regarding New Bank/Auld Anglo.
No short – no projected P&L statements and stresses, daft profit projects, funding dependent on on-going gov support and maintaining current sov rating, on-going exposure to areas Anglo haven’t been good at lending to and a general sense of panic over the vague plans to enter a new lending area.
I think it’s time to ringfence my savings.
I despair of even bringing in outsiders.
Mike Aynsley at Anglo seems to think that it is part of his job to defend the repuation of its former chairman and other directors in order to minimise repuational damage to Anglo.
Probably the best reason to close Anglo is that it has no reputation to defend so notwithstanding any numbers that are dressed up as a business plan, common sense says that this bank has no future.
The sooner we recognise that fact, the sooner we stop paying money to people to bring in new business.
So we airily told to disregard the old Anglo business plan as history.
Reminds me of Nixon’s press secretary telling us that all previous statements were inoperative.
Dukes and Anysley believed until the day before Terrible Tuesday (last March) that the writedown for Anglo transfers to NAMA would be 28% rather than the 50%+.
A mere 10,000,000,000.00 mistake.
And we expect these people to come up with a new credible business plan.
I think they better tell the EU that the dog ate the latest one.
@Maurice O’Leary
I agree entirely with your last comment. It seems at times that theme park banking has taken over wherein people act out roles in a make-believe bank that has no obligation reality. Perhaps the people at Family Guy might take a look if they run short of script material.
Mary Wilson questioned Dukes a few days ago about the likely shape of the next tranche of loans passing from Anglo into NAMA. He apologized for not answering her questions as he didn’t have the spreadsheet in front of him.
What exactly are the responsibilities of ‘public interest’ appointees?
@ alchemist
What exactly are the responsibilities of ‘public interest’ appointees?
a) to represent the interests of the public
That’s what we learn in second level ‘civics’ class
b) to articulate the interests of that part of the political/social system in which they have direct or indirect stake
That’s what we learn from the science of political economy
How long did it take for it to be accepted that the earth goes around the sun ?
The scientific conclusion (b) is liable to make the citizens more ornery. Tough. They’ll get used to it.