Quinn Insurance in Administration

muppet · December 16, 2011, 10:29:22 AM

Quote from: supersarsfields on December 16, 2011, 10:18:28 AM
He prob would have lost the £3billion, and he definitely shouldn't have invested more . But if he lost Three billion he would still be going. The figure he has lost now is closer to six all in.
Anglo didn't force him to take the bet no. But it shouldn't have been a possibility. He shouldn't have been able to take the loans. And if he wasn't offered legal advise in doing so then the loans are illegal and he and the family can rightly contest them.

I'm genuinely interested in the exact transactions that took place so I apologise if it appears pedantic, I know it is an emotive subject for you and more of a curiosity for me.

My understanding is the Quinn entered into a Contract for Difference to secure the 25% before Anglo knew anything. Is that correct? Also I believe that at the time, Anglo didn't provide CFDs so the original transaction would have been with another institution, probably in London or New York. Is that correct or did he do the whole thing with Anglo?

supersarsfields · December 16, 2011, 10:55:32 AM

No, don't worry Muppet. And I'll be honest I don't know the full ins and outs of things. But I do know that everything that is being reported is far from the whole story.

My understanding is that the 25% stake was built up privately by Sean Quinn through CFDs using money from the Group and his own wealth. Not sure where these were built up but it was without Anglos knowledge. Then when the prices dropped SQ told Anglo about the level of his investment as he would be unable to meet the difference. It was then that Anglo loaned the money to prevent the CFDs going back on the market which would have caused a drop in the share prices.
Again i think this is a pretty simplistic summary of things but it's the reason they are disputing the loans.

supersarsfields · December 16, 2011, 11:09:49 AM

Quote from: Tubberman on December 16, 2011, 10:25:20 AM
Quote from: supersarsfields on December 16, 2011, 10:18:28 AM
He prob would have lost the £3billion, and he definitely shouldn't have invested more . But if he lost Three billion he would still be going. The figure he has lost now is closer to six all in.
Anglo didn't force him to take the bet no. But it shouldn't have been a possibility. He shouldn't have been able to take the loans. And if he wasn't offered legal advise in doing so then the loans are illegal and he and the family can rightly contest them.

That's a great defence alright. "Sure I didn't know what I was at".

I think you'll find that it's quite a defense alright when you consider the likes of the claims for payment protection that have been ongoing based on a similar issue of not getting the advise legally required when taking it out.

deiseach · December 16, 2011, 11:50:08 AM

I have no doubt that there is something dodgy about the manner in which Seán Quinn was lent money by Anglo. Sign there Seán, it's just a formality Seán, it'll never come back on you Seán. However, the loans would still be dodgy had they turned to be spectacular successes. Would Seán Quinn be washing his hands of the ill-earned profits he would have made upon discovering said dodginess? Like fun he would.

muppet · December 16, 2011, 11:54:59 AM

Quote from: supersarsfields on December 16, 2011, 10:55:32 AM
No, don't worry Muppet. And I'll be honest I don't know the full ins and outs of things. But I do know that everything that is being reported is far from the whole story.

My understanding is that the 25% stake was built up privately by Sean Quinn through CFDs using money from the Group and his own wealth. Not sure where these were built up but it was without Anglos knowledge. Then when the prices dropped SQ told Anglo about the level of his investment as he would be unable to meet the difference. It was then that Anglo loaned the money to prevent the CFDs going back on the market which would have caused a drop in the share prices.
Again i think this is a pretty simplistic summary of things but it's the reason they are disputing the loans.

If that was the case the ratio of the cost of 25% would roughly have been 1:9. Or in others word Quinn would have put up 2.5% and the provider of the CFD would put up 22.5%. Assuming that CFD provider wasn't Anglo Quinn's first problem was paying back (margin call) the provider of the CFD as the share price fell. That is when I think he went to Anglo.

supersarsfields · December 16, 2011, 12:14:07 PM

Quote from: deiseach on December 16, 2011, 11:50:08 AM
I have no doubt that there is something dodgy about the manner in which Seán Quinn was lent money by Anglo. Sign there Seán, it's just a formality Seán, it'll never come back on you Seán. However, the loans would still be dodgy had they turned to be spectacular successes. Would Seán Quinn be washing his hands of the ill-earned profits he would have made upon discovering said dodginess? Like fun he would.

Prob not Deiseach I agree. But the fact that it didn't means he has an avenue to dispute the loans. and I would say the majority of people would do the same considering the route Ango/ the state has gone about their business.

Muppet you will prob know more about the CFD side than I do. But what would have happened had SQ not paid the balance on the CFDs. Is it not a case of losing the 2.5% when the CFDs are recalled and then resold by the lender?

muppet · December 16, 2011, 12:41:10 PM

Quote from: supersarsfields on December 16, 2011, 12:14:07 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 16, 2011, 11:50:08 AM
I have no doubt that there is something dodgy about the manner in which Seán Quinn was lent money by Anglo. Sign there Seán, it's just a formality Seán, it'll never come back on you Seán. However, the loans would still be dodgy had they turned to be spectacular successes. Would Seán Quinn be washing his hands of the ill-earned profits he would have made upon discovering said dodginess? Like fun he would.

Prob not Deiseach I agree. But the fact that it didn't means he has an avenue to dispute the loans. and I would say the majority of people would do the same considering the route Ango/ the state has gone about their business.

Muppet you will prob know more about the CFD side than I do. But what would have happened had SQ not paid the balance on the CFDs. Is it not a case of losing the 2.5% when the CFDs are recalled and then resold by the lender?

Unfortunately not. The CFD provider takes no risk and would have liquidated him quicker that Anglo are doing now. Anglo should never have got involved and undoubtedly they would probably all be in jail except for the regulator gave the nod. (according to Emmet Oliver yesterday). However from Quinn's point of view (at the time) doing a deal with Anglo probably looked much better for him.

supersarsfields · December 16, 2011, 12:53:38 PM

Yeah I understand what you saying Muppet. But what I don't understand is that SQ had nothing in his name from way before Administration. Had he been liquidated by the provider he would have lost any money he'd invested and whatever personal assets. But as the group and insurance weren't under his name they wouldn't have been touched. But it was the guarantees that he and the children signed up for with Anglo that took down the whole lot and these were related to the illegal loans from Anglo. Had they not got involved in this then yes SQ would have been ruined but the group and Insurance would have stood in the Children's name and they would have had a chance to rebuild. Of course that would have been a disaster for Anglo as the CFDs would have flooded back onto the market causing their share price to drop.

seafoid · December 16, 2011, 12:59:51 PM

Quote from: supersarsfields on December 16, 2011, 12:53:38 PM
Yeah I understand what you saying Muppet. But what I don't understand is that SQ had nothing in his name from way before Administration. Had he been liquidated by the provider he would have lost any money he'd invested and whatever personal assets. But as the group and insurance weren't under his name they wouldn't have been touched. But it was the guarantees that he and the children signed up for with Anglo that took down the whole lot and these were related to the illegal loans from Anglo. Had they not got involved in this then yes SQ would have been ruined but the group and Insurance would have stood in the Children's name and they would have had a chance to rebuild. Of course that would have been a disaster for Anglo as the CFDs would have flooded back onto the market causing their share price to drop.

He was way out of his depth. Like all the people in finance in Ireland. The viciousness of the bailout says it all.
But you try not to get yourself into a situation where they shit on you.

supersarsfields · December 16, 2011, 01:03:26 PM

No doubt Seafoid. He made a mess of things and instead of cutting his losses he chased them.

There's a lot to run in this yet. I reckon this thread will still be going in two years time.

muppet · December 16, 2011, 01:11:31 PM

Quote from: supersarsfields on December 16, 2011, 12:53:38 PM
Yeah I understand what you saying Muppet. But what I don't understand is that SQ had nothing in his name from way before Administration. Had he been liquidated by the provider he would have lost any money he'd invested and whatever personal assets. But as the group and insurance weren't under his name they wouldn't have been touched. But it was the guarantees that he and the children signed up for with Anglo that took down the whole lot and these were related to the illegal loans from Anglo. Had they not got involved in this then yes SQ would have been ruined but the group and Insurance would have stood in the Children's name and they would have had a chance to rebuild. Of course that would have been a disaster for Anglo as the CFDs would have flooded back onto the market causing their share price to drop.

Like I said, it must have looked better to him at that time to sign up for that. He obviously felt the CFD people liquidating him would be far worse, rightly or wrongly.

supersarsfields · December 16, 2011, 02:16:17 PM

Yeah I'm sure he was hoping that things would turn round and that he'd get to trade his way out of it.

AQMP · December 16, 2011, 02:19:17 PM

The man should be ashamed of himself, hoodwinking a poor stupid housewife like that!

deiseach · December 16, 2011, 03:04:52 PM

The beak hasn't accepted Patricia Quinn's damsel-in-distress defence. This part stood out as a twist of the judicial knife:

QuoteHe also said Mrs Quinn's lawyers had argued that there was a presumption of undue influence in the relationship between husband and wife.

There was not, he said, and had not been since 1750.

Nice job, wigs.

supersarsfields · December 16, 2011, 05:19:40 PM

In Other News.

^{THE Quinn Group's new management last night confirmed they were "considering" closing a Galway quarry and making 12 staff redundant.

The move would mark the first closure and layoffs at the Quinn Group businesses since they were taken over by Anglo Irish Bank and lenders last April.

Anglo initially vowed to protect all jobs. But the bailed-out bank later gave up the veto on job cuts as part of a deal to remove an extra €250m of debt from the group.

The bank asked other lenders to relieve the group of the €250m of debt -- in exchange Anglo agreed to give up its veto on job cuts.

Sources last night said the bank would be powerless to block the mooted Galway cuts, because Anglo is now only able to veto cuts of more than 10pc of the staff in any Quinn Group unit.

The cuts may also revive local ill-feeling against the Quinn Group takeover.}

That's the start of it.

And I love the way the papers reported that the they have reduced the dept and "relieved" the group of dept. All they've done is agreed with the lenders to put the dept aside for a few years. The dept is still there and will have to repaid at some stage. The spin being put out by the state/ Anglo on this is crazy. The problem is that most are accepting it without question.