The average salary in that organisation is â‚¬73,000 (2005 figures - can’t imagine what their 2007 is gonna be like). What do they do all day I wonder? Oh wait, they’re not really under any obligation to publish anything if they don’t feel like it.
Salary bill of â‚¬7.1m in 2005 spread out over 97 employees (60 of whom are full-time). Can only conclude that there are some seriously fat (â‚¬200k+) cats working for the ESRI.
A “not-for-profit company”, “registered charity” my ass. They should be subject to tax if the directors can afford to pay themselves this kind of money. Why can’t the government (with all the brains working for them in the civil service) source their own figures via the CSO? Isn’t that what the CSO is for? Why are we, the taxpayer, funding this institution, and a tax-free institution at that?
Laughing all the way to the bank they are. They don’t care if they’re late - they’ll look after their clients’ interests first. Sure the â‚¬3m+ cash grant from the government (in return for telling them what they want to hear) is guaranteed anyways. Oh and they’ve only got â‚¬13m in equities (for a rainy day). Should be plenty enough cash to happy-slappy their PR/fund management/communications company mates on the back.
Oh and if you want to be a part of this: don’t bother. It’s a closed shop so PFO.
The ESRI is a parasite, leaching precious research funds from the universities and colleges without having to spend a penny on education…
That being said, I am sure the ESRI/Permanent tsb bank report is heavy on the Permanent tsb bank side of the house and the ESRI likely just puts together the numbers and slaps their name on the report to give it ‘legitimacy.’ I would think that the ESRI no more interest in the report then as a marketing tool for their own name…
The ESRI/PTSB report is as good as it gets in this country IMO. Before the ESRI report became available, ancient house price data from the DoE was the index of reference as far as I can remember.
Just because the report doesn’t show negative numbers as quickly as some would like is no reason to rubbish the whole thing. Apart from PTSB controlling the date of release, I wouldn’t entertain any conspiracy theories.
Perhaps, but don’t be so naive to think that accurate data is not available to various government departments/agencies. This data is certainly not released to the general public.
Don’t be under any illusions that the ESRI is a somehow a replacement for this. Maybe it’s “as good as it gets in this country”, but we all know that you can’t make sound decisions based on biased information from an institution, who as far as I can see, functions to:
enrich its directors
tell the government what they want to hear
con the public, in the interests of big business, under a cloak of “charity” and “non-profit” alongside a name like “ESRI”, as if it were some-how state sanctioned.
No, they’re being rubbished because they are spinning the figures to satisfy their own (and PTSB’s) agenda. It suits the ESRI and PTSB just fine to herald rising prices, but when it comes to informing the public of falling prices, they have every motivation to put things in as “positive” a light as possible.
Just so people don’t start throwing PTSB/ESRI figures as gospel on this site in future.
Just because you think they may have motivation to put things in a positive light doesn’t mean that they actually do this.
One point to highlight the integrity of the ESRI/PTSB report - when the market went negative in 2001, the index reflected this. They would have had just as much “motivation” to alter things back then. The index went negative for a few months between 2001 and early 2002.
I’m not here to defend the ESRI but the conspiracy theories are a bit much for me. The reason the index isn’t negative yet is most likely the delay between sales being agreed and mortgages drawn down followed by the production of the report.