The truth will out, no matter how hard some may try to conceal it. The bank gaurantee, the bailouts etc are not designed to “get credit flowing again” but instead to protect speculators who have gambled on the Irish property bubble.
The problem is that much of the debt is investor rather than bank debt. That’s what we see from the random lists of bondholders that have been posted up (on GuidoFawkes, for example). These are, as far as I can see, investment funds. That means that Hans and Gertie’s money is invested in a fund that has invested in Irish banks. This is not a liability of the German banks, it is a liability of their investors.
In addition, the IFSC has large borrowings (for which it largely has matching assets). This will skew any picture based on the BIS. We have no idea, however, how much of IFSC lending is to Irish banks - how much is lent on exposure.
So, do we want to stuff Hans and Gertie? Or Jean-Claude and Fifi?
I don’t care if it’s senior money and is the same as depositor money - anyone who put their faith in Seanie and Fingers and perpetual double-digit growth deserves to lose their shirt. Greedy, dumb bastards, probably fund managers chasing bonuses. Fuck em.
Aye, I don’t doubt it, I am attempting to explain the confusion on numbers.
The German fund managers had a reputation amongst the US banks as being dimmer than the average - read Michael Lewis’s The Big Short.
I think it is a little dim of us to do this without at the same time stiffing the NAMA loan ‘investors’ (those who borrowed to invest and are now in NAMA claiming poverty). Is it materially different to those who borrowed to buy apartments in Bulgaria/Dubai/anywhere in Ireland as their investment nest eggs? Or indeed, just an over-priced PPR (whether they hoped to flip it at a later date)? Or the grannies with their lifesavings in BoI shares?