Again with this shit:
Can somebody explain to me why Nationalisation should have to compensate both the shareholders and bondholders?
Shareholders in Northern Rock or Bradford and Bingley got paid NOTHING by the UK government when they were nationalised.
I’m sure it was the same for Anglo Irish shareholders … … Why should AIB / BOI be any different?
sigh…Accounting isnt shane colemans forte.
Nationalisation may arise BECAUSE the bad debts are so large that the company is bankrupt and therefore the shares are …wait for it…WORTHLESS…
Is there a bigger government lick-arse than Shane Coleman? More often than not his columns resemble govt press releases with his name thrown underneath. With a piece like that you don’t know where to begin.:
Correction - no plan that involves putting taxpayers’ money into the banks for free is going to get public support.
OK, but that’s not necessarily an argument in favour of NAMA, is it?
Because we’re overpaying for the loans under NAMA (eg. “longterm economic value” as oppose to market value), we’re going to be giving more than 5bn to the shareholders anyway, and at least with nationalsiation we get a full equity stake in return for it.
Simply incorrect. Those advocating immediate nationalisation desire that it happen in conjunction with NAMA, so that the state could easily sort the bad assets from the good without worrying about prices. So it does address the balance sheets.
But the government has subtly admitted we’ll probably end up nationalising the banks anyway. So why not do it now, and avoid overpayment instead of doing it after we’ve injected the banks with free cash?
And if after NAMA the banks don’t have to be nationalised, it will mean that NAMA has overpaid for the assets to such an extent that the banks don’t need capitalisation, which will bascially mean we;ve been screwed. So which one is it, Mr Coleman?
Pay the shareholders 5bn!
Would ye ever go and shite Coleman! Let the guarantee run out and the shares are worthless!
God forbid Democracy in action!
We couldnt have that here!
^^ Im letting him know I think he is a prick anyway
Agreed, I believe he is a brother in law of a cabinet minister, a lot of things in his columns always sound like a FF politician musing aloud or off the record so to speak.
Today’s column was a nadir though, even by his standards.
That explains a lot. The guy is a Fianna Fail apologist and his opinion pieces are always biased towards the FF position.
Fianna Fail spin doctors are working flat out calling in all favours in the Media and all around.Their txting Joe Duffy,blogging,calling talk shows under assumed names.Txt’s and e-mails are flying out from the bunker @65-66 Lower Mount St. to all the Cumanns advising “de faithfull” to clog the airways with the party line.At least now were getting to see “who they are” as we have always known “what they are”. Coleman is a disgrace to Journalism,I would’nt wipe my…with anything He wrote on. Its interesting how their pleadings and warped logic are starting to come through.Not a shred of credibility left for any of this Zanu-FF GANKSTERS.
Hans Christian Anderson couldnt make this stuff up honest de jaysus its pathetic.
Hmmm they actually published my comment on the article, BlindJustice’s too. And I love this one…