What exactly do 'Leading Economists' do ?

Not particularly having a pop at Dan, Austin et al…but, are these guys just PR hacks or do they actually have a role in advising how a bank operates ?

I can’t imagine that management or shareholders would actually let the likes of Austin actually have a hand in deciding lending policy’s.

So who does decide whether to raise LTV requirements & why don’t they get quoted in the press Releases instead to the usual Muppet show we get ?

in our bank, the guy has a senior strategic role and rarely makes public pronouncements

not an Irish bank though, their ‘economists’ deserve their quotation marks richly

I suppose they’re a bit like weather forecasters. Except most of our favourite lads here went to the Michael Fish School of Getting It Right.

I would love it if someone at the BOI AGM would ask:

"Given that Dan McLaughlin is consistantly wrong in his predictions about the economy, can you confirm whether or not Bank of Ireland is making decisions based on his advise?


Hmm, wrong for whom, though?

The bellows that Dan was pumping helped to blow up the BoI stock price, and that is all that matters to shareholders. The fact that he was rolled onto radio and TV shows as an apparently objective economic observer, while the media acquiesced in the charade, is the real tragicomedy.

Dan works for BoI. And he who pays the piper calls his lamentable tune. Of course, we all knew this, and took all of his dubious pronouncements with a grain of salt and a nod to Mandy Rice-Davies: “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?”

Alas, there were many who mistook Dan pumping a bellows for a disinterested master of the dismal science, and heeded his advice. But at some point, people have to start thinking for themselves.

If only we knew someone with shares :wink:

*looks forward to next years AGM…

Simple. Leading economists lead people.

Just PR hacks. Listening to the rubbish most of them spew out, I have serious doubts whether any of them actually have, you know, actual qualifications in economics.

They always come across to me like blustering spoofers, they’ve learned a few buzz-words and been given a list of targets to attack and trigger phrases to work in there, then they just go out and make it all up on the spot. There’s precious little evidence they understand what they are talking about.

“Just stickin to the script, ma’am”

Not if his consitantly being wrong is undermining investor confidence in the bank.

I’d certainly like to know:

  1. If the Board get the same opinions from Dan that the public do.
  2. If they make decisions based on his opinion.

To be perfectly blunt, I’d like them to justify the guys existence or else add his salary to the bottom line and turn his office into a creche. You could probably get a better level of forcasting by giving babies a box of crayons and the Financial Times.

I’m haunted forever by the employee who stood up and asked Enron management if it was safe to put their 401K into Enron stock, and everyone on the stage laughed and said “Keep buying, buy as much as you can”.

I can’t make the AGM in July, It’d cost me a days worth of work, which is a lot more than I stand to make from BofI any time soon.


This is exactly the point, he has an obvious conflict of interest as do they all. Why isn’t their every statement predicated by an announcement that they have a Vested Interest & followed by a statement by something along the lines of ‘the value of your investment may go down.’

The reason why I ask if they are involved in actual business decisions is that I don’t see how they can justify on the one hand saying that ECB rates will fall & on the other they are advising that their Bank’s tracker Mortgages be ended & then relaunched, but now tracking EUROBOR ?

This has to rate alongside the Endowment Mortgages scandal in the UK in terms of the colossal abuse of trust by banks.

Couldn’t agree more. Interest Only, sort out your own way of paying for the asset. Like an Endownment, only much more irresponsible IMHO.

I think there are significant differences in that the Endowment miselling people believed that their principal would be paid off. No one on IO believes that (I hope).

If people trusted the banks to not let them take on mortgages they could illafford then this should be a lesson leaned.

Perhaps their full title is: “Misleading Economists”?

Maybe the ‘Mis’ is silent :laughing: :laughing:

Yes, but at least in most cases an diminshed endowment still afforded some protection.

By allowing IOs on PPRs and not affording even the smallest amount of protection to their clients, I think they are guilty of an even bigger scam. It fuelled the boom by allowing people to live a lifestyle they really couldn’t afford. You might say tough shit, cavet emptor or whatever, but these shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place.

With the UK endowment misselling compensation scheme, the difference between your financial position with the endowment and your financial position with a straight repayment mortgage could be calculated. (small complication of life insurance aspect). you were compensated that amount, in cash, by your mortgage lender.

what calculation do you think should be done in the case of “IO mortgage misselling”? :open_mouth:

the head of a major bank put the same question to a mathematician, an accountant, and an economist.
the question was “what is two multiplied by two?”
the mathematician replied: “two by two is four, absolutely”
the accountant replied: “two by two is four but with a ten percent margin of error”
the economist replied: “two by two. well, what do you want it to be?”