Quinn Insurance in Administration

[dublinfella]

dub, Quinn could have got himself out of this mess as Quinn Insurance was trading very profitably... Doomsday happened months ago when NAMA was invented. Were the banks trading wrecklessly for years before the crash happened (becasue of their endless lending policies) and if the government had not stepped in what would have happened to ALL my savings?

1: Thats not how regulation works. In the insurance industry you can't say 'well I can't cover claims now, but give me 6 months'.

2: So you are arguing that the goverment were right to step in to protect your deposits but wrong to step in to protect somone elses health insurance?

One rule for the City, another rule for the country my old man

Bull. New rules, or at least enforcement of them, for all, regardless of how chummy you are with FF.

[supersarsfields]

_{Rules is the rules and he was on a yellow card. He then broke the rules, and THE LAW, and the regualtor acted to protect policyholders as they felt the company was systemically broke.}


If the rules are the rules how come all insurance companies don't have to comply? The company was never systemically broke so I don't know were your getting that from. They had 118% of their ratios covered. Only slightly of what the reccommended ratio in Ireland.

_{As his is legal right.}

Err no actually. The decision to impose a ban on all NI/UK business was fundamentally wrong, particularly
with regard to the manner in which it was implemented immediately prior to him going to the
High Court to request they place the firm in provisional administration.
What the Regulator should have done as correct & responsible procedure would have been to allow the Administrators, that he sought to appoint two hours later, to analyse the business and let them make an informed decision on the NI/UK market.
If after this review by the Administrators, it was felt warranted to remove QIL from trading in some
parts of the market or increase prices in some areas, then fine, do this after their review, but why
impose a ban on all lines, severely damage the reputation, & then reopen the business just a few
weeks later.

_{You imply that this was the first run in between the regualtor and Quinn. They didn't do this out of boredom.}


No I didn't.

_{So you want a return to the days of old where 'clout' trumps the law? His insurance companies were insolvent - even he accepted that. The regualtor had to act and with the press they had recently were always going to hammer the next financial institution that stepped out of line.}


No I wouldn't want a return to "clout trumps the law. But you make it sound like this was the only option open to the regulator. There was other ways of dealing with the insolvency ratios. There were ways were the regulator could have worked with QD and but measures in place to ensure QD gets up to full solvency ( And when i say that I mean for Ireland's 150% ratio, which is 50% higher than most other Euro countries) within a year or two. What I didn't expect was for the regulator to destroy a Irish company that was paying the Government nearly 100Million in taxes each year, giving 1000's of people employment, outpreforming larger UK insurance companies. Nor did I expect the Irish government to sit back and watch it happen either when it caused the loss of 900 jobs and up to 20,000 other jobs indirectly. There were plenty of other options open to the regulator as have been mentioned in the media. But funnily enough he choice the most drastic of all. Or as some more cynical people have viewed it the one option that would gather the regulator the highest profile before he swans back to the UK.

_{A portion? Jesus wept}

You see this line shows me that you don't have a clue, If you think there was no other option and that no one else has any blame other than SQ.

(Apologies about the quoting still can't get the hang of it. )

[sammymaguire]

dub, Quinn could have got himself out of this mess as Quinn Insurance was trading very profitably... Doomsday happened months ago when NAMA was invented. Were the banks trading wrecklessly for years before the crash happened (becasue of their endless lending policies) and if the government had not stepped in what would have happened to ALL my savings?

1: Thats not how regulation works. In the insurance industry you can't say 'well I can't cover claims now, but give me 6 months'.

2: So you are arguing that the goverment were right to step in to protect your deposits but wrong to step in to protect somone elses health insurance?

One rule for the City, another rule for the country my old man

Bull. New rules, or at least enforcement of them, for all, regardless of how chummy you are with FF.

I am still waiting for two insurance companies to sort out a claim I have had to deal with from August last year

well said sarsfields, i could not have put it better than that myself if i was here for a week. This whole mess is an utter disgrace which has been allowed to happen by numb nut politicians standing idly by 

[Maiden1]

Dublinfella you sound like a civil servant 'they were only following the processes'.

The business was making 30 million a month, unless Ireland got hit by a nuclear bomb there was never any danger that the company would not have been able to pay out all policies (in which case there most likely would not need to be any payouts).

Common sense would have said that they looked at the figures and then said to Quinn you have 6 months to find X amount of money to get up to 150%.  If that means finding more investors so be it, with a company that was making £30million profit a month it would not have been hard to find investors.

By going in so heavy handed the regulators totally destroyed a very profitable business and thousands of peoples livelyhood.  This was the inevitable and obvious outcome from the approach the regulators took.  Would you pay out £500 for car insurance when a company might not exist in 3 months?

You could go into any business in ireland and destroy them by going in 1 day and saying we are closing you down for 2 weeks until we look at the figures some more instead of looking at the figures and then saying you need to do X, Y and Z to meet some regulation.  It is beyond belief that this was allowed to happen the way it did.

[dublinfella]

A civil servant I am not, but the point being WHY were they making this claimed 30m a month? By not playing by the rules. To the point where the company was not solvent. We don't need a nuclear bomb, we need a bout of swine flu for it all to have unravelled.

If you think they went in swinging because they had nothing better to do, you are on a different planet. Everyone in the insurance industry had heard the stories about their business model and they had major run ins with the regulator in both Ireland and Britain over serious systemic flaws. So serious that they invoked their right to remove the entire board and appoint a third party to try and save the company.

The rules have changed over the last few years. No-one is looking the other way anymore. That seems to be the bit you are refusing to accept.

[Maiden1]

A civil servant I am not, but the point being WHY were they making this claimed 30m a month? By not playing by the rules. To the point where the company was not solvent. We don't need a nuclear bomb, we need a bout of swine flu for it all to have unravelled.

If you think they went in swinging because they had nothing better to do, you are on a different planet. Everyone in the insurance industry had heard the stories about their business model and they had major run ins with the regulator in both Ireland and Britain over serious systemic flaws. So serious that they invoked their right to remove the entire board and appoint a third party to try and save the company.

The rules have changed over the last few years. No-one is looking the other way anymore. That seems to be the bit you are refusing to accept.

Did they try to save them or did they make an example out of them?

We've already had a bout of swine flu and no businesses went under to my knowledge because of it!

What you don't seem to have a problem with is that they put thousands and thousands of people in a rural area out of work and onto the dole when they were working in a profitable business.  By all means fine the company if they are not following all the rules until they do comply or even force them to sell part of business, but not come in 1 day and shut the gates, that should be the last option they should be going for.

[dublinfella]

Did they try to save them or did they make an example out of them?

Both.

We've already had a bout of swine flu and no businesses went under to my knowledge because of it!

We aren't taking about 'business'. We are talking about insolvent health insurers.

What you don't seem to have a problem with is that they put thousands and thousands of people in a rural area out of work and onto the dole when they were working in a profitable business.  By all means fine the company if they are not following all the rules until they do comply or even force them to sell part of business, but not come in 1 day and shut the gates, that should be the last option they should be going for.

They? They, after repeated warnings (day 1 my arse) removed the board of a company that at best were cooking the books and at worst were involved in fraud.

Heroin dealers make money and employ people in improverished rural areas. But the law is still being broken and the state have to react.

Sean Quinn, and Sean Quinn alone created this mess with the greed he showed trying to make billions on risky Anglo derivitiaves and then using company (and client) money to cover his losses. You can't blame the regulator for that fundamental basis to his troubles.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Did they try to save them or did they make an example out of them?

I guess the new regulator may have gone hard enough to make an example but any administration work is to save them.

What you don't seem to have a problem with is that they put thousands and thousands of people in a rural area out of work and onto the dole when they were working in a profitable business.  By all means fine the company if they are not following all the rules until they do comply or even force them to sell part of business, but not come in 1 day and shut the gates, that should be the last option they should be going for.

A few things:

• If you start bending the rules even for something honourable and altruistic as saving jobs in a rural area, you are still bending the rules.  It starts with that and goes on to breaking the rules as has happened in the past.   And the reasons get less and less honourable and altruistic each time.


• Remember "Day 1" wasn't this May, it was October 2008 when Quinn Life and Quinn himself were first fined by the previous regulator.


• "They" have not shut the gates, they have trimmed the company to something sustainable that may just prevent the gates being closed in the long run


• It's fine for a business to turn a profit but some of that profit needs to be ploughed back in, especially in an insurance company with regulated solvency requirements.  If that profit is being diverted to cover costs/debts/losses elsewhere then it is irelevant to the discussion.

[supersarsfields]

_{We aren't taking about 'business'. We are talking about insolvent health insurers.}

Well would they not have looked closer to home for that then. QD had a hell of a lot better solvency than VHI. So I'll be expecting the same action there then? No? Why not? Or why have they extended the deadline for solvency to 2012 for VHI?

The regulator was not trying to save QD. The regulator was making a name for himself. And he did that. In fact had the Government known excately what the regulator was planning and the outcome they wouldn't have have allowed the guns blazing, taking no prisoners approach.

_{They? They, after repeated warnings (day 1 my arse) removed the board of a company that at best were cooking the books and at worst were involved in fraud.}


Fraud? Then surely the Guards would have turned up something on that when they investigated? Or did they decide to hide that? Or maybe the third option that your talking crap?

There was issues with insolvency that had been declared in the accounts since 2005. But don't let that get in the way of you twisting things.


<sub>Heroin dealers make money and employ people in improverished rural areas. But the law is still being broken and the state have to react.

Sean Quinn, and Sean Quinn alone created this mess with the greed he showed trying to make billions on risky Anglo derivitiaves and then using company (and client) money to cover his losses. You can't blame the regulator for that fundamental basis to his troubles.</sub>


You see here we are again your saying SQ caused this all himself. But I've listed a load of things that weren't related to SQ about how it was handled that puts fault at the Regulator. Which is going back to your orginal point that the whole mess can't just be laid at SQ's feet.

Can you show were SQ used client money to hide the debt or a link to it?

I'm not even going to comment on the herion dealer comment.


Also one final things

_{Everyone in the insurance industry had heard the stories about their business model}

Could you just let me know what problems these are? I'm hoping their not the problems that competitors have highlighted in response to QD's growth?

[supersarsfields]

Did they try to save them or did they make an example out of them?

I guess the new regulator may have gone hard enough to make an example but any administration work is to save them.

What you don't seem to have a problem with is that they put thousands and thousands of people in a rural area out of work and onto the dole when they were working in a profitable business.  By all means fine the company if they are not following all the rules until they do comply or even force them to sell part of business, but not come in 1 day and shut the gates, that should be the last option they should be going for.

A few things:

• If you start bending the rules even for something honourable and altruistic as saving jobs in a rural area, you are still bending the rules.  It starts with that and goes on to breaking the rules as has happened in the past.   And the reasons get less and less honourable and altruistic each time.[/li]
  
  
  • Remember "Day 1" wasn't this May, it was October 2008 when Quinn Life and Quinn himself were first fined by the previous regulator.
  
  
  • "They" have not shut the gates, they have trimmed the company to something sustainable that may just prevent the gates being closed in the long run
  
  
  • It's fine for a business to turn a profit but some of that profit needs to be ploughed back in, especially in an insurance company with regulated solvency requirements.  If that profit is being diverted to cover costs/debts/losses elsewhere then it is irelevant to the discussion.

Jim sorry but I disagree with that bit in bold. They are already bending the rules for VHI by extending their deadline to 2012.

Why was this not offered to QD? And lets be honest QD is doing alot more for the irish economy than VHI. VHI were also insolveny in 2008 and they weren't fined. Yet QD were.

Also the profits to the insurance company can be put anywere as long as it's not threatening the solvency ratios. And lets remember QD's solvency ratios were well over the EU mimium requirements of 100%. (They had 118%) However were they failed was getting up to the ratio set by the regulator of 150% But they were on course to meet this before the end of 2010 had the regulator given them a chance.

And lets look back now. Which would have been the greater evil work with QD to ensure solvency within the year? Or to go in all guns blazing and destroy the rep of an thriving Irish insurance company.

As for the not shutting the doors on the business. Again I'll disagree. They have enforced unreasonable price increases on QD that put them at up to 300% higher than other insurance companies premiums. This despite the fact that QD have lower costs than most insurance companies because of their fast track system.

[dublinfella]

SS

The new regulator has clearly spelled out that different risks will be treated differently. VHI don't have the previous regulatory failings and fines QD do. So the situation is different and is treated differently.

Your entire argument seems to be that because Quinn provides employment he should be left alone to run his company as he personally sees fit. Well as Jim Murphy put it that isn't acceptible anymore post Anglo. The country has changed and the expectation is now there that the regulator do his bloody job and deal with companies that are at it. And QD were most certainly at it.

You fundamentally don't seem to get the fact that the 'profits' QD were making were inflated by the fact they weren't playing it straight. If you can't get your head around that there isn't much point talking to you.

[supersarsfields]

SS

The new regulator has clearly spelled out that different risks will be treated differently. VHI don't have the previous regulatory failings and fines QD do. So the situation is different and is treated differently.

Your entire argument seems to be that because Quinn provides employment he should be left alone to run his company as he personally sees fit. Well as Jim Murphy put it that isn't acceptible anymore post Anglo. The country has changed and the expectation is now there that the regulator do his bloody job and deal with companies that are at it. And QD were most certainly at it.

You fundamentally don't seem to get the fact that the 'profits' QD were making were inflated by the fact they weren't playing it straight. If you can't get your head around that there isn't much point talking to you.

VHI had the same failings as QD with regards to Solvency. And that is the issue that placed QD into Admin. So your wrong about the situation being different. It's the same and what's more QD had alot better solvency ratio that VHI. And QD were on plan to be meeting the excessive 150% rate by the end of 2010 but weren't given the opportunity. VHI have been given deadlines that they have progressively failed to meet and have had these extended.

A large part of my arguement is based around the good that QD and QG has done for the Irish economy alright. I don't deny that. And he was already in the process of increasing his ratio so given time would have brought it up to the required 150%. Had the regulator worked with him and allowed him the time VHI was given despite their lack of increase in solvency and indeed them needed a cash injection in 2008 from the state then QD would have been able to meet this. In fact plans were given to the Regulator explaining how they would meet the 150%. But he decided to ignore these and go for the high profile guns blazing approach.

You seem to think that the regulator had no option but to do what he did. When in fact he did. He had options that were being provided to VHI.

Can you tell me how Quinns Direct profits were inflated by not playing it straight? I fail to get my head around the fact that you keep going round in circles and haven't taken on board anything I've mentioned in the last few posts so maybe your right there's little point in talking to you.

One final question Why has VHI been given til 2012 to get their solveny up despite their failing over the last few years whenQD weren't offered this? Despite the fact QD were making the better inroads to the 150% ratio?

[dublinfella]

VHI had the same failings as QD with regards to Solvency. And that is the issue that placed QD into Admin. So your wrong about the situation being different. It's the same and what's more QD had alot better solvency ratio that VHI. And QD were on plan to be meeting the excessive 150% rate by the end of 2010 but weren't given the opportunity. VHI have been given deadlines that they have progressively failed to meet and have had these extended.

But you are answering your own question. VHI have an arrangement in relation to increasing their solvency and are sticking to it. QD have one and didn't.

The rights and wrongs of why the solvency ratios are different is somewhat irrelevant. QD broke their agreement on sovencly and VHI didn't.

A large part of my arguement is based around the good that QD and QG has done for the Irish economy alright. I don't deny that. And he was already in the process of increasing his ratio so given time would have brought it up to the required 150%. Had the regulator worked with him and allowed him the time VHI was given despite their lack of increase in solvency and indeed them needed a cash injection in 2008 from the state then QD would have been able to meet this. In fact plans were given to the Regulator explaining how they would meet the 150%. But he decided to ignore these and go for the high profile guns blazing approach.

But the regualtor had worked with QD (and I note you say him... very telling) and it involved a record fine and a yellow card. You are falsly asserting that this is the first interaction beween the FR and QD on this matter, not the cumulation of a couple of years worth of warnings.

The issue is QD writing an intercompany loan to cover gambling debts with ringfenced solvency money and when the FR found out they reacted. Any side arrangements over solvency that were went out the window when that happened.

You seem to think that the regulator had no option but to do what he did. When in fact he did. He had options that were being provided to VHI.

But VHI didn't breach the rules and stuck to their arrangement. You can't compare the two.

Can you tell me how Quinns Direct profits were inflated by not playing it straight? I fail to get my head around the fact that you keep going round in circles and haven't taken on board anything I've mentioned in the last few posts so maybe your right there's little point in talking to you.

They didn't pay out on claims in time and money that other insurers had to keep as collateral was invested or recorded as profit.

One final question Why has VHI been given til 2012 to get their solveny up despite their failing over the last few years whenQD weren't offered this? Despite the fact QD were making the better inroads to the 150% ratio?

Irrelevent. The issue is that QD broke the law by using solvency funds to plug losses in other Quinn companies - after an explicit warning not to do so again.

[supersarsfields]

<sup>But you are answering your own question. VHI have an arrangement in relation to increasing their solvency and are sticking to it. QD have one and didn't.

The rights and wrongs of why the solvency ratios are different is somewhat irrelevant. QD broke their agreement on sovencly and VHI didn't</sup>

Are you serious??? Did you not read my post above? QD had already sent plans into the regulator explaining how they were planning to meet the ratio by the end of 2010.

VHI have been given plans and have constantly broke these. Resulting in the deadline being pushed back on a number of occasions. The last one being 2012. And what's more QD had a better ratio than VHI.

<sub>But the regualtor had worked with QD (and I note you say him... very telling) and it involved a record fine and a yellow card. You are falsly asserting that this is the first interaction beween the FR and QD on this matter, not the cumulation of a couple of years worth of warnings.

The issue is QD writing an intercompany loan to cover gambling debts with ringfenced solvency money and when the FR found out they reacted. Any side arrangements over solvency that were went out the window when that happened.</sub>


very telling is it?? 
The record fine was disputed at the time by QD as being excessive given the fact there was never a risk to policyholders, as admitted after by the regulator.


_{But VHI didn't breach the rules and stuck to their arrangement. You can't compare the two.}


Seriously are you not following this? VHI broke the rules by not meeting the solvency deadline that they were given by the regulator. However these rules were relaxed in their case to allow more time to reach these deadlines

so i think it's fair enough to compare the two cases.

_{They didn't pay out on claims in time and money that other insurers had to keep as collateral was invested or recorded as profit.}

Can you send me a link on this? Have to say first I've heard of this?

<sub>[Irrelevent. The issue is that QD broke the law by using solvency funds to plug losses in other Quinn companies - after an explicit warning not to do so again. /sub]

Not irrelevant.  What you seem to be forgetting is that VHI are breaking the law also by not meeting the requirement set by the requlator as were QD. So again could you answer why VHI were allowed time to meet solvency and QD weren't?</sub>

[supersarsfields]

And by the way DF i'm not saying there wasn't alot of fault at QD and SQ's feet in this, in case anyone things I am. But what I don't accept is that they are soley to blame to how it was dealt with which is what you were claiming.