Questions: if the bank’s bondholders are to feel some pain in Sep 2010 when the guarantee expires, how would that work with AIB, BOI and Anglo?
The govt owns Anglo - so would it be liable if Anglo defaults on its bonds?
BOI and AIB would need to go into receivership, I assume, then the govt would buy them up.
Previously (due to the success of SI’s pleading), letting the big 2 be nationalised was considered a no-go.
Can NAMA be delayed as long as possible (up to Sep 2010) to try and maximise pain for bondholders?
Good to see at least one individual who is clearly an insider call it as it really is. Shame that he appears to be the only insider doing so…
BTW i wonder if he feels he needs to protect his reputation. Given that he has received such a roasting (on frontline etc.) and is regarded as such a bogeyman amongst some quarters - public sector workers etc. - he might feel that he needs to be just as tough on the banks etc. in order to look unbiased - still even taking that into account good stuff
But can you not only negotiate a hair-cut (and optional equity stake) if the alternative is bankruptcy?
Not a good outlook for AIB/BOI shareholders if McCarthy’s views swing public opinion and ultimately govt.
As a barrister, Lenihen is trained to maintain credibility in front of twelve people for a few days or weeks. As I’m sure you agree, he could learn a thing or two from McCarthy about stretching this out a bit.