Quinn Insurance in Administration

Started by An Gaeilgoir, March 30, 2010, 12:15:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

muppet

Quote from: supersarsfields on February 26, 2013, 06:30:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 26, 2013, 05:45:18 PM
Quote from: supersarsfields on February 26, 2013, 05:31:14 PM
And maybe they shouldn't have fiddled their accounts either.

Why is it Quinn supporters can't understand this is not an either or situation?

Anglo is officially the worst business in Irish history and are possibly is worst bank in World history.

Now over to Sean Quinn. He, all on his own, by his own hand, of his own volition, without the knowledge of Anglo bet €3bn on them. Are we supposed to bail Quinn's idiotic bet out because Anglo was rotten?

Both Quinn and Anglo are disasters for the Irish economy. Despising one does not mean you have to support the other.
Funny I would say the same about others who lay the blame solely at SQ which your previous post about "had Sean Quinn not made the bet " seemed to imply.
Indeed its equally possible to think SQ messed up with his CFDs but still appreciate other aspects of his career.

Messed up? Understatement of the millennium.

If we had a Government who prioritised the taxpayer, this is what should have happened:

We wouldn't have guaranteed Anglo and they would have gone to the wall.

We would also have let the Quinn Group go to the wall.

Quinn wouldn't be suing anyone as there would be no one to sue.




MWWSI 2017

supersarsfields

Why would a profitable business go to the wall?

muppet

Quote from: supersarsfields on February 26, 2013, 06:58:43 PM
Why would a profitable business go to the wall?

Dunno, if someone took €288m out to finance a bad investment it mightn't help. Also losses totalling €1bn in 2009 & 2010 might make it difficult.

Then when you need the State to introduce a levy to bail you out, as Calre Daly put it:

http://www.claredaly.ie/insurance-amendment-bill-sept-27-2011/

One of the key issues is the extension of the insurance compensation fund to deal with losses of the Quinn family. A large percentage of insurance losses result from speculative gambling on the property market by the family and, in effect, the legislation provides for the transfer of those gambling debts on to the shoulders of hard pressed taxpayers and working people who need to insure cars, homes and so on.
MWWSI 2017

supersarsfields

And what was the operating profits for those years and the previous couple?. Profits of up to 500m I believe.
There was never a chance of QG going bust. That's nonsense.

armaghniac

QuoteAnd what was the operating profits for those years and the previous couple?. Profits of up to 500m I believe.

Any insurance company makes big profits between accepting the premiums and paying out on the claims. The question is whether they were setting aside sufficient funds and there appears to be evidence that they were not.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

muppet

Quote from: supersarsfields on February 26, 2013, 07:15:09 PM
And what was the operating profits for those years and the previous couple?. Profits of up to 500m I believe.
There was never a chance of QG going bust. That's nonsense.

Anglo made even bigger profits and look what happened to them. In all seriousness I don't really understand what happened Quinn Insurance but my instinct is to look at the inappropriate loan, the 'outrageous contempt' of court and draw my conclusions accordingly. But I honestly can't explain that one.

There also seems to be a regulator issue, as when we actually had a competent one the problems began for QI. Again I don't really know.
MWWSI 2017

supersarsfields

Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2013, 07:20:41 PM
QuoteAnd what was the operating profits for those years and the previous couple?. Profits of up to 500m I believe.

Any insurance company makes big profits between accepting the premiums and paying out on the claims. The question is whether they were setting aside sufficient funds and there appears to be evidence that they were not.

The call for the levy only came in when the company was split in two and the historic claims for the company were parcelled of to one side so as to not interfer with the profitable side of the business. QIL had over £1Billion in CASH reserves alone when it was taken over. So the company had the cover there for the claims (Granted not 150% as requested but they were far from the only insurer with this problem). Had the government not seperated of the historic claims as a way of making more money there wouldn't be a call for the levy. It staggers belief people can't see that. In fact we're still waiting 3 years later for the Regulator to show the legal data that he based his decision on when putting QIL into administration but he has been refusing. And this from someone who was quite happy to come forward to the press with his "Show me the money" speech.
The Quinns got a seperate report done by Danske bank that stated that the cross over in the guarnatees should not have affected the solvency levels of the insurance company. I don't expect you to turn around and just accept this findings but do you not think it's weird that when this suddenly appeared the regulator just shut up shop on speaking to the press about it, where as before that he was so vocal. He was asked on multible occasions to provide the legal findings that he based this decision on but has refused. Where as it would have been very easy to present the information and shut the Quinns up. I wonder why he couldn't?
The Quinns and QIL make some massive mistakes in their running of the business. The withdrawal of the funds the main one. They made mistakes on areas that they got into like indemity insurance in the UK as well. But they had already withdrawn from these areas before administration. Yes their profits would have taken a hit over a couple of years but there would have been no need for a call on the IF. The call on the IF was a stroke by the government. Maximise the chance of profits from QIL while passing on any of the costs to the policy payers in a tax that they could blame someone else for.

EC Unique

Quote from: Rossfan on February 26, 2013, 04:33:56 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 26, 2013, 04:19:09 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 26, 2013, 04:12:11 PM
I love the use of the word "unfortunate"  >:( to describe a situation where my pocket will be robbed by the rich and famous to pay the rich including the "poor Quinns".
Blaming Cowen and Company is a bit like blaming the Guards if there's an increase in robberies.
However one good thing is that those people in the 6 Cos who are so enthusiastically backing the Quinns will also be paying for this mess after re unification  ;D

So how much is this taking out of your 'pocket' then Rossfan?

About €35 per week since 2009 and to continue till 2035 = €45,000 give or take an oul € here or there ( at 2013 prices). I presume th'oul pension will be reduced by then as well so ...... :-[

Where does the 35euros a week figure come from?

tommysmith

As i stated previous when this all blew up first i though Quinn was in the wrong, now i am not so sure there are a few people who had plenty to say at the start gone hiding in the long grass.

Rossfan

Quote from: EC Unique on February 27, 2013, 10:11:54 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 26, 2013, 04:33:56 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 26, 2013, 04:19:09 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 26, 2013, 04:12:11 PM
I love the use of the word "unfortunate"  >:( to describe a situation where my pocket will be robbed by the rich and famous to pay the rich including the "poor Quinns".
Blaming Cowen and Company is a bit like blaming the Guards if there's an increase in robberies.
However one good thing is that those people in the 6 Cos who are so enthusiastically backing the Quinns will also be paying for this mess after re unification  ;D

So how much is this taking out of your 'pocket' then Rossfan?

About €35 per week since 2009 and to continue till 2035 = €45,000 give or take an oul € here or there ( at 2013 prices). I presume th'oul pension will be reduced by then as well so ...... :-[

Where does the 35euros a week figure come from?
Increased tax( through reduced credits) and  new Universal Social charge plus Public Service Pension Levy imposed.
I checked my last payslip of 2008 against my latest one.
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

supersarsfields


supersarsfields

Ahh so that's the whole banking collapse your talking about. I assumed from the the post of RF that he was paying 35 a week due to SQ. So that's not the case then.

Rossfan

Quote from: supersarsfields on February 27, 2013, 12:57:09 PM
And those are all due to SQ?

A large part of it is and then there's the Insurance Levies on car/house insurance due to Quinn "misadventure" which I haven't counted.
As for Private Health Insurance -- can't afford that.
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

supersarsfields

#2398
It isn't a large part. In fact if the quinns win there cases it'll be zero % of it. Anglo will have taken control of more than was owed to them. But of course now that they've been liquidised there'll be no chance of the Quinns claiming for compensation for that. They'll join the que at the back the same as other unsecured creditors. 
As for the Levy. I've given my thoughts on that above. 

Rossfan

Sars you're loyalty to the Quinns  :-* is touching.
Wait till you're paying for them after re Unification, Wonder how loyal you'll be to the "poor mites" who need €370k per annum to survive ? ;)
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM