I don't believe Irish eyes are smiling ......
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-05-01/beginning-great-irish-unwind
The Beginning Of The Great Irish Unwind?!?!?!
I have spent two week warning Ireland and the world about the Irish banking system, with a summation available in the aptly titled post,
If I Provide Proof That The Entire Irish Banking System Is A Sham, Does It Set Up A Much Needed System Reboot? Let's Go For It...Yesterday, the Irish media STARTS to come clean, although they are still not as explicit as the Irish Sun article which put my researched facts front and center...
Click to enlarge...
From the Irish Times
Yesterday, at the press briefing to discuss the Central Bank’s 2012 annual report, Honohan matter-of-factly told us that the Irish banks would need more funding before 2019 due to changes in capital reporting requirements imposed by the new Basel III accord.
The transition period for these changes to be implemented by banks in the EU is January 2019.
There were more than a few eyebrows raised at this frank admission.
Honohan’s statement is in stark contrast to those of the various Irish-owned banks –AIB, Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB. In public at least, the banks have maintained that they are adequately capitalised and that they do not envisage having to raise additional capital to bolster their ratios.
From the Independent:
Mr Honohan said the Central Bank was still working towards carrying out stress tests on the banks at the latter part of the year. By 2019, the banks will need more capital under international regulations.
"In an ideal situation, that capital will come from private investors, as is happening all over Europe, all over the world, where bank capital is being pushed up through the market system," he said.
From private investors? Yeah, right! As said private investors are hoodwinked, just like those poor muppets in the US - reference What Should The US Do If One Of The Biggest Irish Banks Blatantly Defrauded US Investors:
The Bank of Ireland
In the 2008 Annual Accounts (Irish version of Annual Report) of Bank of Ireland (see attached, page 178) it states the bank gave a first floating charge in favor of the Central Bank of Ireland (an arm of the European Central Bank) and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland over the Banks ‘right, title, interest, benefit, present and future, in and to certain segregated securities listed in an Eligible Securities schedule.’
Fact: The BoI 2008 Irish accounts (~annual report) refer to the charges in their Disclosure Section (see attached page from 2008 accounts) where they describe the charge as being over ‘certain segregated securities.’
Of paramount importance for US investors and regulators, there is an absolute omission of this information in the Bank of Ireland SEC 20F returns for 2008.
image006
From the Irish Examiner:
However, banks would need capital over the medium term to comply with Basel III capital requirements by 2019. It is hoped the banks will be able to raise this from private investors, he added. He hoped Ireland would not need the help of the ECB’s outright monetary transaction programme when it exits the bailout programme. However, if it met certain criteria, then it would be able to use the facility.
But private investors have done so well in the Irish banks, particularly considering their pristine disclosure policies, right??? Again, reference What Should The US Do If One Of The Biggest Irish Banks Blatantly Defrauded US Investors:
The Bank of Ireland 2008 Irish Annual Accounts refer to the charges in their Disclosure Section (see attached page from 2008 accounts) where they describe the charge as being over ‘certain segregated securities,’ but no mention of ‘right, title, interest, benefit, present and future, in and to certain segregated securities listed in an EligibleSecurities schedule.’
There is also no mention of any information related to this floating charge in the Bank of Ireland SEC 20F returns for 2008.
It appears that this floating charge was not disclosed at the time of the stress testing of the bank conducted by the European Banking Authority.
It is possible that I may have overlooked such, and because of that possibility I have made the SEC 20F available for all who want to check over my work. Here is the UBI 2008 accounts and here is the SEC 20f-2008 for the Bank of Ireland.
Now of course, to constitute fraud there has to be a loss on the part of the one being defrauded or a gain on the part of the one being defrauded - at least according to Wikipedia. Otherwise, it would be a hoax. That's the Irish banking system, and not this bank in particular. So...
If you believe that the information above actually identifies a gross misrepresentation of fact, omission or outright fraud, simply contact the SEC and let them know that Reggie Middleton suggested they look into it. You can actually use this form to convey my message.
Remember, extreme wealth concentrates, so you don't have to... Coming from a "Cyprus'd" bank near you!
and.........
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/public-finances/pensions-ruling-could-leave-government-with-bill-of-up-to-300-million-1.1373063
Pensions ruling could leave Government with bill of up to €300 million
European Court of Justice finds Ireland in “serious breach” of its obligations to protect workers
The Government could be facing a bill of up to €300 million after the European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the pensions of former Waterford Crystal workers must be protected.
Industry sources said it was now almost inevitable that the Government would introduce a levy on other defined benefit schemes to cover the cost of creating a fund to finance the pensions of unprotected workers in the future.
There is concern in the sector that additional costs will further undermine the viability of defined benefit schemes in the private sector, which provide retirement benefits for nearly 200,000 people.
State pays the price for ignoring obligations on pensions
Overjoyed former worker thanks those who took case
Court rules in favour of Waterford Crystal workers
European Court finds State was in serious breach of pension obligation
The Irish Times takes no responsibility for the content or availability of other websites.
Pension entitlements
Ten former employees of Waterford Crystal, which went into receivership in January 2009, took a case against the State for the loss of their pensions. At the time of the company’s insolvency, the workers were told they would receive only between 18 per cent and 28 per cent of their full pension entitlements.
The ECJ found that Ireland was “in serious breach” of its obligations to protect workers and that Waterford Crystal employees were entitled to protection under the 2008 EU Insolvency Directive. The judges ruled that offering retirees half of what they had been promised under a defined benefit scheme did not amount to protection by the State.
The court also dismissed arguments by the State that the economic situation in Ireland justified a lower level of protection than might otherwise have been required. The issue will now go back to the High Court in Ireland to decide what level of cover the Government will have to provide.
Pensions Ombudsman Paul Kenny said the ECJ ruling could cost the Government millions if full cover is provided to the 1,700 former workers.
“It would appear to be a charge on the State. The Government would have to pay.”
The Waterford Crystal schemes had assets of €130 million and liabilities of €240 million when they were wound up.
Mr Kenny said he had no doubt the other workers at Waterford Crystal would apply for their case to be dealt with in the same way, adding that members of other pension schemes whose employers became insolvent following the 2007 Carol Robins case could also benefit from the ruling.
English woman Carol Robins successfully challenged the UK government after a company’s insolvency left her with only 49 per cent of her pension. The UK government restored her pension to 90 per cent following the case.
Gary Byrne, the solicitor who represented the Waterford Crystal workers, said he was hopeful he could achieve up to 89 per cent of their pension entitlements, since this was the level secured by the workers’ counterparts in Britain.
‘Unfair of the court’
“The Wedgwood guys got 89 per cent of their pension entitlements and the Waterford Crystal guys got nothing. It would be unfair of the court to give them 51 per cent now.”
The Byrne Wallace solicitor said it was “regrettable” the workers had to take the case to the European Court of Justice to win the protection, considering that the EU requirement for pension protection has been in place since 1980.
John O’Connell, founder of financial advisory firm Trident Consulting, said the ECJ ruling only applies where both the scheme and employer are in wind up and as such the potential number of cases affected was likely to be very small.
Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore said that as the matter remained sub judice he could not comment.
Already, about 80 per cent of defined benefit schemes are in deficit and are being obliged by the pensions regulator to restructure in ways that generally mean reducing retirement benefits and/or increasing employee contributions.
No comments:
Post a Comment