Quinn Insurance in Administration

[dublinfella]

The regulator has a job to do.

That is to maintain a solvent and consumer friendly financial sector. And this regulator has done a good job considering the mess he inherited, and that is commonly accepted.

Quinn Insurance are a bust flush due to the possibly criminal actions of their owner in gambling client funds to make a quick buck off Anglo, with their full support. Lets not forget that vital piece of information.

He, and his office, are not buying what SQ and Anglo are selliing, and experience suggests they are damn right. All your emotive language matters not a jot when the simple reality is that the rogues who destroyed the company are not trusted to fix it again.

I'm waiting for you now to start with the fact he is a Brit. Its about as cereberal as the rest of yur posts.

[supersarsfields]

The regulator has a job to do.

That is to maintain a solvent and consumer friendly financial sector. And this regulator has done a good job considering the mess he inherited, and that is commonly accepted.

Quinn Insurance are a bust flush due to the possibly criminal actions of their owner in gambling client funds to make a quick buck off Anglo, with their full support. Lets not forget that vital piece of information.
He, and his office, are not buying what SQ and Anglo are selliing, and experience suggests they are damn right. All your emotive language matters not a jot when the simple reality is that the rogues who destroyed the company are not trusted to fix it again.

I'm waiting for you now to start with the fact he is a Brit. Its about as cereberal as the rest of yur posts.

You really have no idea about what happened with Quinn and Anglo do you? Once this sale goes through ( And unfortunately it looks like it will) two things are going to happen. Quinns have been advised that they have a legal case against both the regulator and Anglo and that' what's going to happen.

I see the way you have avoided answering any of the questions I've asked you.

Firstly have you read the proposal?
Secondly do you think  the regulator should pick an option that is going to cost the tax payer money and loss jobs when it has been approved by everyone but him that it's the best option?
Do the think the regulator should be allowed to make this decision without given reasons behind his choice considering the value of what's at stake.
And finally do you think that the Regulator is immune to making mistakes just because he's unaccountable?

As for your last point? I suppose that's the standard of debating I've come to expect from you. You came on this thread before and attempted to make false accusations about the way Quinn work and you showed yourself up as at the least ignorant and at worst dishonest.

[dublinfella]

You really have no idea about what happened with Quinn and Anglo do you?

I do indeed. Need a lesson in CFD's?

Once this sale goes through ( And unfortunately it looks like it will) two things are going to happen. Quinns have been advised that they have a legal case against both the regulator and Anglo and that' what's going to happen.

Advised by who? The regulator has ultimate veto over all mergers and acquisitions in the financial services market. Copperfastned in legislation. More bluster.

I see the way you have avoided answering any of the questions I've asked you.

No I haven't but, here we go.

Firstly have you read the proposal?

Yes.

Secondly do you think  the regulator should pick an option that is going to cost the tax payer money and loss jobs when it has been approved by everyone but him that it's the best option?

Who is 'everyone'? The Quinn family? The Anglo board? Irrelevant.

Do the think the regulator should be allowed to make this decision without given reasons behind his choice considering the value of what's at stake.

Yes. Its his job, its enhsrined in legislation. The actors involved have proved themselves to be untrustworthy.

And finally do you think that the Regulator is immune to making mistakes just because he's unaccountable?

He is accountable, just not to Sean Quinn. And of course he can make mistakes. But in this case I don't think he has.

As for your last point? I suppose that's the standard of debating I've come to expect from you. You came on this thread before and attempted to make false accusations about the way Quinn work and you showed yourself up as at the least ignorant and at worst dishonest.

Is it not very clear to you by now that I have some inside track on this.

The rules have changed. The local robber baron can't click his fingers and get what he wants anymore. Its a regulated industry and the rules have changed.

[supersarsfields]

I doubt you have any inside track on this considering how far off you are on most of it. And considering your previous allegations that were ripped to pieces forgive me for not taking your word on that.

<sup>I do indeed. Need a lesson in CFD's?[/sup
Do you wana explain why Sean Quinn isn't facing fraud charges then?

Advised by who? The regulator has ultimate veto over all mergers and acquisitions in the financial services market. Copperfastned in legislation. More bluster.

Not Bluster at all. Regardless of whether the Regulator is untouchable or not he still has regulations that he has to follow as well. Including due process when putting a company into Administration. He failed in this and it is more than likely going to involve a legal action against the position of the regulator (Granted Quinns can win no compensation from the regulator as he's untouchable in that sense but can show that he acted unlawfully if that is the case).
The case agaisnt Anglo regarding the outstanding dept should be pretty clear even to you. Again resulting in the Tax payer footing the bill.
Quinns have been advised this by their legal advisers ( Again whether they are successful or not will be another thing but I'd take the advise of them before taking the advise from yourself DF) that they have solid cases against both.

Who is 'everyone'? The Quinn family? The Anglo board? Irrelevant.

PWC, IMF, Anglo, politicians both North and south and Cross party, CIB. Infact the only one that's had issue with it is the regulator who has decided he isn't going to give reasons for why he ditched the proposal. If he even gave reasons for why it was refused then we would be getting somewere. And for someone who was so keen to speak about the sales process up to thi point it's kinda strange that he's suddenly decided to stay stum now!!

Yes. Its his job, its enhsrined in legislation. The actors involved have proved themselves to be untrustworthy.

So if he was making a F*ck up you'd be happy enough that he doesn't have to explain his actions? Right so!

He is accountable, just not to Sean Quinn. And of course he can make mistakes. But in this case I don't think he has.

He' reports to the High Court but he isn't accountable to anyone. Not the finance minister or anyone.
But thankfully as was mentioned by a few of the political representatives last night they are now starting to call for a public enquirey on his handling of this sale. I'd be very interested to see how that would pan out.</sup>

[supersarsfields]

apologies for the feck up in quoting. Kinda doing everything in a rush here.

[dublinfella]

The IMF support Quinn over the Irish state.   

Will you stop the lights. What a load of waffle.

[supersarsfields]

It seems clear enough to me that you have no idea what's in the proposal, you have no idea who has been involved in the drawing up of this proposal and you have seem to have no interest this decision could mean to people.

In other words I'm trying to tell you that your full of Sh*te.

The IMF have said that if the money that is being touted is to be invested by Anglo to shore up the solvency issue in Quinns is required they see no reasons why it shouldn't be used for that. Considering it would be sitting in an account untouched anyway as it is only to fulfil the solvency ratio ie having liquid asset.

So yet you still havent given a reason why the regulator shouldn't at least explain why the proposal isn't on the table? Instead you've faffed about talking cr*p. Surely if he had legit reasons why not come out and say them now? He's been quick enough to speak out in the past regarding this not least the "show me the money comment". Surely that would be the best way to clear things up.

[dublinfella]

It seems clear enough to me that you have no idea what's in the proposal, you have no idea who has been involved in the drawing up of this proposal and you have seem to have no interest this decision could mean to people.

In other words I'm trying to tell you that your full of Sh*te.

The IMF have said that if the money that is being touted is to be invested by Anglo to shore up the solvency issue in Quinns is required they see no reasons why it shouldn't be used for that. Considering it would be sitting in an account untouched anyway as it is only to fulfil the solvency ratio ie having liquid asset.

So yet you still havent given a reason why the regulator shouldn't at least explain why the proposal isn't on the table? Instead you've faffed about talking cr*p. Surely if he had legit reasons why not come out and say them now? He's been quick enough to speak out in the past regarding this not least the "show me the money comment". Surely that would be the best way to clear things up.

Anglo's money is state money, so either way it costs the taxpayer. And in light of the governments decision to force a merger and wind down of Anglo and INBS, its even more pie in the sky.

I have explained that the regulator is under no obligation whatsoever to explain his decisions to anyone, although I agree he should.

The solvency issues, as you euphamisctically put it, in Quinn Insurance are caused by high jinks with Anglo. Now you are claiming the only credible solution to this is another deal with Anglo. Surely you can see why there would be resistance to that?

Can I ask you a simple question. Who do you blame for this mess?

[supersarsfields]

  Your kinda showing yourself up a wee bit for a guy in the "know"

You do reaslise that the other proposals involve anglo stumping up as well??? So no matter what it means the state putting in money. Only with the Anglo Quinn deal all profits are ringfenced and paid directly to the tax payers and after seven years they then sell the business and take full profits from the sale. This proposal as has been confirmed by PWC would mean the tax payer getting roughly 4.8 Billion over the seven years. Compare this to the loss of 2.8 billion otherwise.

But I'm wasting my time. From the post above you have no idea what is going on nor know anything about the Quinn Anglo proposal.

[dublinfella]

Your kinda showing yourself up a wee bit for a guy in the "know"

You do reaslise that the other proposals involve anglo stumping up as well??? So no matter what it means the state putting in money. Only with the Anglo Quinn deal all profits are ringfenced and paid directly to the tax payers and after seven years they then sell the business and take full profits from the sale. This proposal as has been confirmed by PWC would mean the tax payer getting roughly 4.8 Billion over the seven years. Compare this to the loss of 2.8 billion otherwise.

But I'm wasting my time. From the post above you have no idea what is going on nor know anything about the Quinn Anglo proposal.

I know about the proposal. I just believe that I am more likely to return 4.8bn to the exchequor in 7 years than they are.

And I assume the regulator has the same cynicism.

You are very loyal for whatever reason. You are taking proven liars, chancers and vagabonds at their word.

But you ignored my question. Who is the one person who has put these jobs in peril with his greed?

[supersarsfields]

As I've said before Quinn made a huge mistake getting involved with anglo and it's cost him everything. And if it's not going to get sorted it's also going to cost Quinn employees aswell. I've no problem admitting that.
And while you may argue otherwise Quinn has been loyal to his employees. This proposal takes him out of the company that he was most proud of and takes away any say over that company. Yet he is fighting to keep it not just to keep payments on his dept ( As mentioned if he loses QIL he's taking action against Anglo to get the dept written of so either way) but to maintain employment in the area. That might be hard for someone from Dublin to grasp but it' true.

Regarding your other comment about you being more likely to make 4.8 billion over the next 7 years. You'd want to tell your friends the Administators and the regulator that, considering it was based on figures they themselves are using and projecting

My loyality isn't blind. I owe alot to SQ personally and I'll admit to the mistakes he's made. But without him I wouldn't have been able to afford to own the house I'm in at the minute.
He's made a whole lot of right decisions as well. And no one can doubt the fact he has been loyal to the area he's help develop and farther afield in Ireland when he could have easily outsourced to another country for cheaper.
What I can't understand is why a Regulator who is as you say is wrongly refusing to give reasons is being allowed to make this decision without any other interference. As you said yourself, the regulator should just give his reasons and if their acceptable then that's it over. His refusal to do this is what is fuelling the fires which believe he is acting above his remitt by stopping the anglo quinn proposal going to the Administrators

[dublinfella]

To be honest with you, I don't give a damn about his loyalty to the area, real or percieved.

Thousands of jobs are at stake because SQ broke the law and gambled with policyholders money.

Just because he is liked in an area does not give him a pass.

And with respect, if you work for the company, are you in a position to look at this impartially? You have a vested interest in the deal going one way. And that way might not be in the policy holders or states interest.

[supersarsfields]

Well agree to disagree then as I do give a damn about his loyality.

Thousands of employees are in jobs because of risks SQ took.

He's hardly asking for a pass. He's giving up his company!!

My working for a company doesn't stop me viewing anything. I can see the mistakes he's made and know what the implications are as a result of them. But I can also see the implications of the way this sales process has ben driven. Two wrongs don't make a right. No point in punishing him just for the sake of it when your going to be punishing alot more than just him.

[supersarsfields]

Latest news on the Quinn Sale.


From Post.ie


<sup>The Quinn Group is expected to renew its efforts to be involved in the buyout of Quinn Insurance, after it was confirmed that no decision on the insurer's future would be made until after the general election.

It is understood that the group has commissioned a report from an international accountancy firm, which questions the Financial Regulator's decision to put Quinn Insurance into administration on March 30 last year.

The new government is expected to face intensive lobbying to review the decision, which led to the insurer being put on the market.

The regulator and the administrators have also been urged to reopen Quinn Insurance's British commercial insurance business, which was shut down by the regulator on the same day the administrators were appointed.

At the time, the regulator said that the reason behind the move was ''to prevent Quinn Insurance Limited suffering further financial losses from its currently unprofitable UK business'', but the Quinn Group claims the commercial business was operating profitably.

A report commissioned by the administrators from EMB, a firm of specialist insurance auditors, suggests that parts of the British business were profitable, although the overall British business was loss making.

Quinn Insurance had about 250 staff in Enniskillen working on the British commercial business, which had customers including Tesco and building firm Laing O'Rourke.

However, those jobs are expected to be lost as part of the restructuring of the insurer.

The sale of Quinn Insurance has reached its final stage, but the administrators confirmed to the firm's staff last Thursday that no decision would be made until the new government was formed.

The two final bids are understood to be from a joint venture between Anglo Irish Bank and US firm Liberty Mutual, and from Swiss insurer Zurich.

The Quinn Group had been in talks with Anglo about a joint bid for the insurer, which it claimed would protect jobs and allow full repayment of the €2.8 billion owed to Anglo by the group and its founder, Sean Quinn. However, it was ruled out of the running late last year, and none of the final bids for the firm involved the group.

Supporters of Quinn have stepped up their efforts to have the administration and sale process reviewed following the latest delay.

A meeting took place last Tuesday between groups that support Quinn's proposal for the company, including a cross-party political group led by Sinn Fe¤ in TD Caoimhghin O'Caoláin.

The meeting was also attended by representatives of the Quinn Group, members of Cavan Chamber of Commerce, and lobby group Concerned Irish Business.

They plan to communicate directly with the chief executive of the National Treasury Management Agency (which will fund Anglo's part of any bid), Central Bank governor Patrick Honohan and Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan. It is understood that members of Cavan County Council will meet the Financial Regulator, Matthew Elderfield, on February 28.

In the e-mail to staff last week, one of the administrators, Michael McAteer of Grant Thornton, said there were ''a number of matters'' that could not be finalised until after the election. However, he said he could not go into details of any of the bids, ''as to do so may impede our ability to deliver a very good deal for the company and its staff''.

''I want to stress that the sales process has not been suspended, and that this delay is due to the political climate that the country is currently experiencing, not due to lack of interest on behalf of the bidders," he said.</sup>

[Bogball XV]

To be honest with you, I don't give a damn about his loyalty to the area, real or percieved.

Thousands of jobs are at stake because SQ broke the law and gambled with policyholders money. Just because he is liked in an area does not give him a pass.

And with respect, if you work for the company, are you in a position to look at this impartially? You have a vested interest in the deal going one way. And that way might not be in the policy holders or states interest.

I don't think that's the case actually.