Fuck the Recession Quinlan - Chaaarrggge!


Didn’t realise it was public knowledge.

I respect the Gaybo’s talents as a broadcaster, but wouldn’t he have thought, having got stung back in the 80s with Russell Murphy, that high returns might actually indicate high risk?

And he’s actually sticking up for Quinlan. What’s wrong with him?

Innocents abroad.


What’s wrong with him? Greed essentially, otherwise he’d have his savings in a high-interest deposit account.

Dressed up as ‘maximising your return’ and ‘putting your capital to work’, but essentially greed and envy (“I want to climb onto the same Quinlan Property Escalator as all of these other players”).

Plus of course no appreciation of the basic rule of Risk vs Return.

Risk? What’s that? We’re the lucky Irish, no need to bother our little heads about trivial things like risk…


independent.ie/opinion/analy … 85416.html


These people mentioned in that article will seek to unduly influence NAMA …even if the Greens get their anti lobbying clause into the act 8)


Error note:
The above Independent article refers to Quinlan as ‘the Savoy owner’.
That should of course read ‘the savvy owner’.


It’s all very deepthroatish, isn’t it?


Maybe Paul McGuinness is actually ‘Deep Throat’. :open_mouth:


Im not a reader of the indo, but I found that article to be a very b1tchy form of journalism (towards the clients as much as Quinlan).
Is that a normal style of reporting for the indo ?

Whenever I see names being dropped in that manner, I often think that perhaps there are people in the background pulling strings and trying to settle old scores.

Am I just being paranoid ?


Hardly surprising, look at the date it’s from the 'Sindo, this is the paper that brings you the insightlessness that is Brendan O’Connor, Barry Egan, Jody Corcoran and the vacuous accounts of boring women whose idea of life revolves around Brown Thomas (BTs) and getting mud smeared on them at a weekend retreat at some hotel down the country.


unfortunately yes


The article reads like part fishing expedition part getting the names out there for future developments. My guess is that the Indo may have the goods on Quinlan et al but the story is not watertight enough or complete enough to get past legal. So they are waiting for either someone to bite or someone to make a mistake and then they can run the story with a public interest defense. And if it involves settling some old scores then thats just an added bonus.


Hermès, the luxury French fashion house, is about to buy the the Bond Street shop from Quinlan Private, run by a former Irish tax inspector turned property mogul.



Lot of spin in that article. For example: £25 mn profit.

If the sale price is £75 mn, what was the purchase price? £50 mn? Nah:
telegraph.co.uk/finance/2914 … again.html

Hmm. £55 mn. So that would be a max of £20 mn then.

Still, they must have earned well over the four years they owned it? Not at a 3% yield they didn’t. Add in running costs…

Indeed, the other numbers are a bit suspect:
propertyweek.com/story.asp?s … 149495&c=1
has the price at £70 mn and the yield at below 3%. So how a price of £75 mn can give a yield of above 3%, I don’t really know. Must be one of those unreal numbers from Fermat’s last theorum…

Still £15 mn profit isn’t bad, is it?

Well, that depends on what currency you invested from.

For most of 2005, sterling was at or around €1.46 (on average). ( hmrc.gov.uk/exrate/european-union.htm ). It is currently at €1.09 according to xe.com

£55 mn = €80.3 mn (purchase price)
£70 mn = er, €76.3 mn (sale price)

So, leaving aside inflation, despite running and admin costs, despite negative yield (if the purchase was a geared one)… in simple euro terms Mr. Quinlan managed to lose 5% over four years. Genius.

The moral of the story is beware of devalued currencies… and ex-taxmen bearing gift ideas…


My guess would be that they lost money on the deal (its a distressed sale to generate cash flow) but not through fx exposure. The deal was most likely structured so that the ownership chain went through foreign domiciled SPV’s (Netherlands/Malta etc) so the fx exposure should have been hedged as a mater of course.

But on the other hand we are dealing here with gombeens and 55M of other peoples money so maybe the deals IR and fx risk was unhedged. So they would have lost a lot more than 5% on the deal.


Quinlan Private close to re-finance of its five biggest property deals - Emmet Oliver -> tribune.ie/business/news/art … s-five-bi/


Quinlan considers sale of €1.9bn Santander HQ -> independent.ie/business/iris … 57889.html



The Indo says that Quinlan Private has re-registered itself as an unlimited company “sheilding it’s finances from the public view. The company had no comment to make on the move, which was confirmed in documents lodged with the Companies Registration Office.”

Seems like a fairly significant move for a company that is likely to be one of NAMA’s biggest customers.


A body of legal opinion exists that the responsibilities of directors in unlimited liability companies are less onerous than those in limited liability companies nowadays.


The biggest fear in going unlimited was personal liability for directors but I’ve written before about a loophole that the lawyers have found:

tribune.ie/business/article/ … unlimited/

I don’t believe it’s ever been tested in court however.