Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

All things Rugby
User avatar
Miguel Indurain
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Terenure, Dublin 6, Ireland

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Miguel Indurain »

Blackrock Bullet wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:56 pm The 1987 Budget was shrewd though tbf.
Twas.
In fairness to Ray MacSharry he managed to fight FF's natural tendency to spend willy nilly.
FG and Dukes too worked with them to help right the national finances.
User avatar
anonymous_joe
Posts: 16091
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by anonymous_joe »

DeDoc wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:10 pm
anonymous_joe wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:03 pm
CM11 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:10 pm
anonymous_joe wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:02 pm
CM11 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:47 pm If the risk was easy to quantify, there wouldn't be fúck off quotes from insurance companies. It's not so we have jobs lost and fewer places for children to go for organised activity.
Well that's just desperately sad. Do you genuinely believe this sort of rubbish?

As I keep telling you, the level of claims and payouts remains broadly steady and in slight decline.

Damages are not a secret, they're very easy to predict. They have never been the problem, you've been fed bullshit by the insurance industry and are too weak and proud to admit that.
So insurance companies are turning down free money?
How many times do you need it explained to you that the problem is to do with new regulatory and liquidity requirements and nothing to do with the cost of providing insurance itself?
Well liquidity and regulatory requirements are a direct consequence of various shenanigans of some players in the sector over the years. Are they really more onerous than in other countries, in any case?

If there is money to be made, then surely companies would want to set up here? If they don't want to do that, it suggests that money isn't to be made (and given our very high premiums that would suggest we also have very high costs), or that there are other barriers to entry. If you were looking at it hyopthetically I suppose that could include cartel-like behaviour or other impediments.
In that hypothetical scenario though, you'd imagine that other would be competitors would cry foul pretty quickly....
The EU introduced new liquidity rules across the sector. I've an ex who was an expert in this stuff, but it's not my bailiwick at all.

The point isn't that there is or is not money to be made, the point is that the main expense of the industry - paying damages to injured people - has remained steady over the last decade or so.

The only thing changing has been external to that, and yet the insurance industry blames payouts.

If X + Y = Z, and Y remains constant, then any change to Z is caused by X.
User avatar
anonymous_joe
Posts: 16091
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by anonymous_joe »

CM11 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:29 pm
anonymous_joe wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:03 pm
CM11 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:10 pm
anonymous_joe wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:02 pm
CM11 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:47 pm If the risk was easy to quantify, there wouldn't be fúck off quotes from insurance companies. It's not so we have jobs lost and fewer places for children to go for organised activity.
Well that's just desperately sad. Do you genuinely believe this sort of rubbish?

As I keep telling you, the level of claims and payouts remains broadly steady and in slight decline.

Damages are not a secret, they're very easy to predict. They have never been the problem, you've been fed bullshit by the insurance industry and are too weak and proud to admit that.
So insurance companies are turning down free money?
How many times do you need it explained to you that the problem is to do with new regulatory and liquidity requirements and nothing to do with the cost of providing insurance itself?
So insurance companies are hiking up prices solely to cover regulatory and liquidity requirements? Why would they need to be pulling any wool over anyone's eyes then, as you are suggesting? By your own logic your rant about increased premiums while payouts remain the same is just a rant because the premium increases are just covering costs.
They need to pull the wool over people's eyes so idiots like you will take their side and believe their version of events.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 64696
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

anonymous_joe wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:19 pm
CM11 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:29 pm
anonymous_joe wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:03 pm
CM11 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:10 pm
anonymous_joe wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:02 pm

Well that's just desperately sad. Do you genuinely believe this sort of rubbish?

As I keep telling you, the level of claims and payouts remains broadly steady and in slight decline.

Damages are not a secret, they're very easy to predict. They have never been the problem, you've been fed bullshit by the insurance industry and are too weak and proud to admit that.
So insurance companies are turning down free money?
How many times do you need it explained to you that the problem is to do with new regulatory and liquidity requirements and nothing to do with the cost of providing insurance itself?
So insurance companies are hiking up prices solely to cover regulatory and liquidity requirements? Why would they need to be pulling any wool over anyone's eyes then, as you are suggesting? By your own logic your rant about increased premiums while payouts remain the same is just a rant because the premium increases are just covering costs.
They need to pull the wool over people's eyes so idiots like you will take their side and believe their version of events.
I've taken no side you eejit. I've said before that you're all in it together.
User avatar
anonymous_joe
Posts: 16091
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by anonymous_joe »

You're still parroting their narrative and claiming not to be on their side. :lol:
User avatar
paddyor
Posts: 19615
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by paddyor »

@Leinsterman (apologies if I've msised this)

A lot of talk about us not having enough power generation because we closed the peat plants(we're importing peat now apparently). Maybe it was ages ago and a lot oftime has passed, but did you not say we have loads of generation capactiy? Intel has weighed in ow as well.
DeDoc
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by DeDoc »

anonymous_joe wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:17 pm The EU introduced new liquidity rules across the sector. I've an ex who was an expert in this stuff, but it's not my bailiwick at all.

The point isn't that there is or is not money to be made, the point is that the main expense of the industry - paying damages to injured people - has remained steady over the last decade or so.

The only thing changing has been external to that, and yet the insurance industry blames payouts.

If X + Y = Z, and Y remains constant, then any change to Z is caused by X.
I haven't heard of wholesale big increases in insurance rates across Europe (not to say that I pay much attention, so there may be!), which presumably would happen if it was a consequence of new EU regulation. I'm also not sure why the insurance companies wouldn't just be saying that to the public instead of blaming payouts? Which leaves price hikes being explained by some other element of costs or large-scale profiteering. If there are big profits, why aren't other players coming in - especially ones who have big businesses in other parts of of Europe so are used to the regulations etc.

Genuine question on the 'damages remaining steady' - is this total for the sector (which might have a counter-factor, e.g. few claims) or cost per claim?
User avatar
anonymous_joe
Posts: 16091
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by anonymous_joe »

Sun God is far more clued in about regulation of financial services than I am.

Most countries didn't have a Quinn Insurance or a Setanta. (Maltese base of the latter aside.)
User avatar
anonymous_joe
Posts: 16091
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by anonymous_joe »

User avatar
CM11
Posts: 64696
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

anonymous_joe wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:33 pm You're still parroting their narrative and claiming not to be on their side. :lol:
This all kicked off when I bemoaned Squirrel Scramble closing. You're the only one who's part of the scam on here so I referenced you tongue in cheek.

I do believe both the legal and insurance side are at fault. That doesn't mean there isn't valid claims and honest people on the legal side but you constantly refuse to accept any fault on the legal side so I'm refusing to accept you're one of the honest ones.
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 11181
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Leinsterman »

paddyor wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:34 pm @Leinsterman (apologies if I've msised this)

A lot of talk about us not having enough power generation because we closed the peat plants(we're importing peat now apparently). Maybe it was ages ago and a lot oftime has passed, but did you not say we have loads of generation capactiy? Intel has weighed in ow as well.
At the time we did but, as you say, the peat plants have now closed, Moneypoint is not running at full capacity and both Whitegate and one of the Huntstown plants are offline for long term repairs. Once Whitegate and HPC are back, a lot of strain on the system will be relieved.
Whitegate had a loose part shred the turbine and Huntstown had to get a new transformer apparently. They're not the sort of thing that can be rustled up and replaced in a couple of weeks.
Another issue had been the fact that a lot of data centres have been built in the last couple of years as well.
Some peaking plants wouldn't go astray.
DeDoc
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by DeDoc »

anonymous_joe wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:17 pm https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/1 ... insurance/

Cost of claim per policy.
That article doesn't really look good for lawyers or insurers....
Injury claims far exceeded claims for damage with the average cost of the former increasing by 53% from €29,780 in 2009 to €45,576 in 2019.

The average cost of a damage claim increased by 6% from €1,194 to €1,262 over the same period.
Not really a good look for the lawyers
The loss ratio for the industry, defined as claims as a percentage of premiums, averaged 72% between 2009 and 2019.

This metric reached a high of 92% in 2014 and a low of 57% in 2017 and 2018. The loss ratio averaged at 59% in 2019.

"This is essentially what insurance firms are paying out in claims as a percentage of what they're taking in premiums. It's a good, but not a perfect indicator of profitability," Mark Cassidy, Director of Statistics with the Central Bank, explained.
Pretty much confirming that the insurance companies have been ripping us off for the last few years.
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 42222
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Duff Paddy »

The answer, for the millionth time, is that it’s both the insurance companies and the legal industry (not a profession these days). AJ and chums blame the insurance companies and the insurance companies blame AJ and chums and round and round we go.
Onelostbear
Posts: 660
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:10 pm

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Onelostbear »

Duff Paddy wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:15 pm The answer, for the millionth time, is that it’s both the insurance companies and the legal industry (not a profession these days). AJ and chums blame the insurance companies and the insurance companies blame AJ and chums and round and round we go.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland ... -1.4395803

but don't worry soon solicitors won't be able to trade as they won't be able to get insurance

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/ret ... -1.4657175
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 64696
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/cla ... 75473.html

An article seeking to bring clarity has actually left me even less clear.

That said, I'm ignoring sniffles completely now unless they're otherwise unwell. I think that's what Norma is saying but can't be sure. Oh well.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 64696
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

Onelostbear wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:38 pm
Duff Paddy wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:15 pm The answer, for the millionth time, is that it’s both the insurance companies and the legal industry (not a profession these days). AJ and chums blame the insurance companies and the insurance companies blame AJ and chums and round and round we go.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland ... -1.4395803

but don't worry soon solicitors won't be able to trade as they won't be able to get insurance

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/ret ... -1.4657175
That would be deliciously ironic if the ambulance chasing firms were unable to trade because the situation they helped to create meant they couldn't get insurance.
User avatar
anonymous_joe
Posts: 16091
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by anonymous_joe »

DeDoc wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:53 pm
anonymous_joe wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:17 pm https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/1 ... insurance/

Cost of claim per policy.
That article doesn't really look good for lawyers or insurers....
Injury claims far exceeded claims for damage with the average cost of the former increasing by 53% from €29,780 in 2009 to €45,576 in 2019.

The average cost of a damage claim increased by 6% from €1,194 to €1,262 over the same period.
Not really a good look for the lawyers
The loss ratio for the industry, defined as claims as a percentage of premiums, averaged 72% between 2009 and 2019.

This metric reached a high of 92% in 2014 and a low of 57% in 2017 and 2018. The loss ratio averaged at 59% in 2019.

"This is essentially what insurance firms are paying out in claims as a percentage of what they're taking in premiums. It's a good, but not a perfect indicator of profitability," Mark Cassidy, Director of Statistics with the Central Bank, explained.
Pretty much confirming that the insurance companies have been ripping us off for the last few years.
Injury claims going up and the cost per policy going down is pretty suggestive.

And yes, insurers rip everybody off.

But Duff, Statto et al don't want to admit they fell for it.
User avatar
anonymous_joe
Posts: 16091
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by anonymous_joe »

Onelostbear wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:38 pm
Duff Paddy wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:15 pm The answer, for the millionth time, is that it’s both the insurance companies and the legal industry (not a profession these days). AJ and chums blame the insurance companies and the insurance companies blame AJ and chums and round and round we go.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland ... -1.4395803

but don't worry soon solicitors won't be able to trade as they won't be able to get insurance

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/ret ... -1.4657175
Again, they're leaving because of the regulatory constraints (rather than complaints). There were 4 complaints that were considered against barristers the last year the LSRA has published numbers for and none of them were found liable afaik.

We each pay about €400 insurance.

So 2000 odd people paid €400 and presumably no monies were paid out.

Bit different for solicitors, admittedly.
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 42222
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Duff Paddy »

anonymous_joe wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:27 am
DeDoc wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:53 pm
anonymous_joe wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:17 pm https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/1 ... insurance/

Cost of claim per policy.
That article doesn't really look good for lawyers or insurers....
Injury claims far exceeded claims for damage with the average cost of the former increasing by 53% from €29,780 in 2009 to €45,576 in 2019.

The average cost of a damage claim increased by 6% from €1,194 to €1,262 over the same period.
Not really a good look for the lawyers
The loss ratio for the industry, defined as claims as a percentage of premiums, averaged 72% between 2009 and 2019.

This metric reached a high of 92% in 2014 and a low of 57% in 2017 and 2018. The loss ratio averaged at 59% in 2019.

"This is essentially what insurance firms are paying out in claims as a percentage of what they're taking in premiums. It's a good, but not a perfect indicator of profitability," Mark Cassidy, Director of Statistics with the Central Bank, explained.
Pretty much confirming that the insurance companies have been ripping us off for the last few years.
Injury claims going up and the cost per policy going down is pretty suggestive.

And yes, insurers rip everybody off.

But Duff, Statto et al don't want to admit they fell for it.
Fell for what you lunatic - how many times do you have to be told that the problem lies with BOTH the insurance industry and the legal industry. “Oh you fell for it” what a complete gobshite
User avatar
anonymous_joe
Posts: 16091
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by anonymous_joe »

I've been pointing out for a very long time that the insurers are lying about the numbers.

You and Stats Damascene conversion to "it's both sides" is fooling nobody.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 64696
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

anonymous_joe wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:33 am I've been pointing out for a very long time that the insurers are lying about the numbers.

You and Stats Damascene conversion to "it's both sides" is fooling nobody.
We've been saying it for years, you eejit.
Chilky
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:52 pm

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Chilky »

Sorry for jumping in here - I rarely post but I do know a bit about the Insurance side.

1. Operating Ratio.
The % of claims is sort of irrelevant as what you are more concerned with is their operating ratio - the amount they spend on everything - losses, claims, payroll, rent etc. A good company will run around 90% meaning that for every 100 dollars they take as premiums - they spend 90 on paying out and staying running. Obviously they then make 10 in profit.
Where this becomes a pain is where you have large insurance companies that run with an Operating Ratio of 102. While this is non-sensical in real terms, what they do is take your 100 dollars on Jan 1 and then hope that their investments team will make enough during the year to cover the additional 2 dollars. You can see the obvious flaw here over the past few years. This isn't to excuse any company running a ratio in excess of 100 - sometimes its because a company has decided to grow - but in a lot of cases its simply due to poor management.

2. Regulations / Liquidity
In my 30+ years experience of this industry in Ireland, it's not always been the most sensibly managed or well run. Companies did not maintain sufficient reserving, capacity or foresight to adequately model what their future payouts would be. As such they have now overcompensated and are insisting that liquidity ratios are far higher than ever. This is partly driven by Regulators - but also by the fact that a lot of them don't really know what they are doing and haven't got a nuanced enough view of risk capacity.
DeDoc
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by DeDoc »

anonymous_joe wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:27 am
Injury claims going up and the cost per policy going down is pretty suggestive.

And yes, insurers rip everybody off.

But Duff, Statto et al don't want to admit they fell for it.
The number of claims has gone down. The cost per claim has gone up. Within those costs, there has been a small increase in the damages claims and a large increase in the injury claims.
So unless people are more succeptible now to more serious injury from the same types of accident (we know that cars are certainly not getting cheaper to repair!), then it would suggest damages are going up - which begs the question why, and seems to contradict what you were suggesting before
DeDoc
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by DeDoc »

Chilky wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:23 am Sorry for jumping in here - I rarely post but I do know a bit about the Insurance side.

1. Operating Ratio.
The % of claims is sort of irrelevant as what you are more concerned with is their operating ratio - the amount they spend on everything - losses, claims, payroll, rent etc. A good company will run around 90% meaning that for every 100 dollars they take as premiums - they spend 90 on paying out and staying running. Obviously they then make 10 in profit.
Where this becomes a pain is where you have large insurance companies that run with an Operating Ratio of 102. While this is non-sensical in real terms, what they do is take your 100 dollars on Jan 1 and then hope that their investments team will make enough during the year to cover the additional 2 dollars. You can see the obvious flaw here over the past few years. This isn't to excuse any company running a ratio in excess of 100 - sometimes its because a company has decided to grow - but in a lot of cases its simply due to poor management.

2. Regulations / Liquidity
In my 30+ years experience of this industry in Ireland, it's not always been the most sensibly managed or well run. Companies did not maintain sufficient reserving, capacity or foresight to adequately model what their future payouts would be. As such they have now overcompensated and are insisting that liquidity ratios are far higher than ever. This is partly driven by Regulators - but also by the fact that a lot of them don't really know what they are doing and haven't got a nuanced enough view of risk capacity.
thank you. Good to hear from someone with some inside knowledge :thumbup:
User avatar
anonymous_joe
Posts: 16091
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by anonymous_joe »

Chilky wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:23 am Sorry for jumping in here - I rarely post but I do know a bit about the Insurance side.

1. Operating Ratio.
The % of claims is sort of irrelevant as what you are more concerned with is their operating ratio - the amount they spend on everything - losses, claims, payroll, rent etc. A good company will run around 90% meaning that for every 100 dollars they take as premiums - they spend 90 on paying out and staying running. Obviously they then make 10 in profit.
Where this becomes a pain is where you have large insurance companies that run with an Operating Ratio of 102. While this is non-sensical in real terms, what they do is take your 100 dollars on Jan 1 and then hope that their investments team will make enough during the year to cover the additional 2 dollars. You can see the obvious flaw here over the past few years. This isn't to excuse any company running a ratio in excess of 100 - sometimes its because a company has decided to grow - but in a lot of cases its simply due to poor management.

2. Regulations / Liquidity
In my 30+ years experience of this industry in Ireland, it's not always been the most sensibly managed or well run. Companies did not maintain sufficient reserving, capacity or foresight to adequately model what their future payouts would be. As such they have now overcompensated and are insisting that liquidity ratios are far higher than ever. This is partly driven by Regulators - but also by the fact that a lot of them don't really know what they are doing and haven't got a nuanced enough view of risk capacity.
The problem really was that they lost the run of themselves during the boom as they were making huge profits from lending to developers, directly or indirectly, and/or investing in property.

That allowed them run insurance at a loss for a long time and remain profitable.

Throw in what was happening in Quinn which borders on and may well turn out to be criminal and you've serious issues.
User avatar
anonymous_joe
Posts: 16091
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by anonymous_joe »

DeDoc wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:28 am
anonymous_joe wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:27 am
Injury claims going up and the cost per policy going down is pretty suggestive.

And yes, insurers rip everybody off.

But Duff, Statto et al don't want to admit they fell for it.
The number of claims has gone down. The cost per claim has gone up. Within those costs, there has been a small increase in the damages claims and a large increase in the injury claims.
So unless people are more succeptible now to more serious injury from the same types of accident (we know that cars are certainly not getting cheaper to repair!), then it would suggest damages are going up - which begs the question why, and seems to contradict what you were suggesting before
The cost of claims per policy has fallen though, so any increase per claim is offset by an overall reduction in claims.

The big area that causes problems for them is medical negligence, not PI. But they don't want to admit that, because it's all too often babies who are the victims.
User avatar
The Sun God
Posts: 13604
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Best country in the world.

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by The Sun God »

Chilky wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:23 am Sorry for jumping in here - I rarely post but I do know a bit about the Insurance side.

1. Operating Ratio.
The % of claims is sort of irrelevant as what you are more concerned with is their operating ratio - the amount they spend on everything - losses, claims, payroll, rent etc. A good company will run around 90% meaning that for every 100 dollars they take as premiums - they spend 90 on paying out and staying running. Obviously they then make 10 in profit.
Where this becomes a pain is where you have large insurance companies that run with an Operating Ratio of 102. While this is non-sensical in real terms, what they do is take your 100 dollars on Jan 1 and then hope that their investments team will make enough during the year to cover the additional 2 dollars. You can see the obvious flaw here over the past few years. This isn't to excuse any company running a ratio in excess of 100 - sometimes its because a company has decided to grow - but in a lot of cases its simply due to poor management.

2. Regulations / Liquidity
In my 30+ years experience of this industry in Ireland, it's not always been the most sensibly managed or well run. Companies did not maintain sufficient reserving, capacity or foresight to adequately model what their future payouts would be. As such they have now overcompensated and are insisting that liquidity ratios are far higher than ever. This is partly driven by Regulators - but also by the fact that a lot of them don't really know what they are doing and haven't got a nuanced enough view of risk capacity.
You reckon !!!... PMPA, Insurance Corp of Ireland, Setanta and of course the pièce de résistance, Quinn whose idea of Tier 1 capital adequacy was to combine the weekend taking of the Cat & Cage in Drumcondra and The Barge on the canal and throw that on the balance sheet.
User avatar
anonymous_joe
Posts: 16091
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by anonymous_joe »

Setanta were Maltese. ;)
User avatar
The Sun God
Posts: 13604
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Best country in the world.

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by The Sun God »

anonymous_joe wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:38 am Setanta were Maltese. ;)
But run by Irish incompetents.
Chilky
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:52 pm

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Chilky »

My two favourite stories about Quinn

1. No Actuaries - he didn't "believe" in them. How this was allowed by a Central Bank, Regulator or Auditor is beyond me.

2. If you put in for a claim for $100, the team would ring you and offer you $80 cash tomorrow OR they'd have to go through the whole procedure and it could take you months to get anywhere and then it may not even be approved. Quasi gangsterism.

Basically Quinn and others were poker players in an industry that really should be run by chess players.
User avatar
The Sun God
Posts: 13604
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Best country in the world.

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by The Sun God »

Chilky wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:45 am My two favourite stories about Quinn

1. No Actuaries - he didn't "believe" in them. How this was allowed by a Central Bank, Regulator or Auditor is beyond me.

2. If you put in for a claim for $100, the team would ring you and offer you $80 cash tomorrow OR they'd have to go through the whole procedure and it could take you months to get anywhere and then it may not even be approved. Quasi gangsterism.

Basically Quinn and others were poker players in an industry that really should be run by chess players.
Nothing that couldn't be sorted over a long lunch in l'ecrivain with that prick Neary.
DeDoc
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by DeDoc »

anonymous_joe wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:37 am
The cost of claims per policy has fallen though, so any increase per claim is offset by an overall reduction in claims.

The big area that causes problems for them is medical negligence, not PI. But they don't want to admit that, because it's all too often babies who are the victims.
Yes, obviously the insurance companies have been creaming it, because it is cheaper on average per policy, but the injury awards appear to be rising.
The article you linked is specifically about motor insurance, so I don't get the relevance of medical negligence
Chilky
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:52 pm

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Chilky »

Neary and his ilk have spread a long shadow over the whole ecosystem. Regulators are now all about showing how on top of everything they are and demanding more and more in the hope that we'll forget they slept at the wheel a few years ago.

One example - an Asset Mgmt firm I worked at was audited by the Central Bank in early 2000s. Our IT audit consisted of 4 questions - one of which was did we backup our data (and it was a yes/no answer).
Our most recent set of regulations now requires details of how the external auditor overseeing the Business Continuity exercise was chosen. This level of ass covering has created a growth industry that can only add hugely to the cost margin. But none of them can or will admit that this over correction is because they were so incredibly inept for years.
User avatar
The Sun God
Posts: 13604
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Best country in the world.

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by The Sun God »

Chilky wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:03 pm Neary and his ilk have spread a long shadow over the whole ecosystem. Regulators are now all about showing how on top of everything they are and demanding more and more in the hope that we'll forget they slept at the wheel a few years ago.

One example - an Asset Mgmt firm I worked at was audited by the Central Bank in early 2000s. Our IT audit consisted of 4 questions - one of which was did we backup our data (and it was a yes/no answer).
Our most recent set of regulations now requires details of how the external auditor overseeing the Business Continuity exercise was chosen. This level of ass covering has created a growth industry that can only add hugely to the cost margin. But none of them can or will admit that this over correction is because they were so incredibly inept for years.
I would well believe it considering how The Central has turned into a retirement home for out of work mediocre bankers that couldn't get a job elsewhere.
The cost margin, which of course is passed on, has led to multiple banks quitting Dublin including Commerz, Deutsche, Danske, Goldmans and Credito Italiano all of which were very active in Capital Markets from their Dublin base.
User avatar
normilet
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by normilet »

https://www.thejournal.ie/jailed-carer- ... 7-Sep2021/
A WOMAN WHO fraudulently claimed over €69,000 in carer’s allowance for minding her elderly mother in Cork when she was living in the UK and travelling to Barbados and Morocco has been jailed for 18 months.
Probably a fairly common occurrence. What intrigued me was the top comment or two:
Not saying she was right, she wasn’t, but a lot of bankers did a lot worse for years and not one of them did jail. And a prominent ex rugby player is being charged with stealing €580k and I doubt he’ll do 18 months
It will be interesting to see what sentence Mr Mullin gets-??? just a slap on the wrist probably- is he still working with BOI ?? would not trust him — he should get at least ten years in Portlaoise with the high risk prisoners- one law for the poor and one for the rich- look at Rachel Allen’s son caught with over €30k drugs and got away with it- a few months in a detention centre – now he is up on social media as a very GOOD BOY a load of crap
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 64696
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

This is the issue alright. Scamming the government is seen as a legit job for some and sure how can anyone complain given 'de bankers'.
User avatar
The Sun God
Posts: 13604
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Best country in the world.

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by The Sun God »

CM11 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:30 pm This is the issue alright. Scamming the government is seen as a legit job for some and sure how can anyone complain given 'de bankers'.
I spent a rather entertaining morning in the courthouse in Athlone a few years back. I was there on a speeding charge that managed to get away from me but there were literally 2 dozen welfare fraudsters having their case heard before traffic cases...... Not pleasant for any of the defendants. What I took away from my wasted day was whatever you do, do not go in front of a judge having ripped of Ireland Inc. Do anything to sort it before it goes to court because judges ( this one anyway ) hate the crime and those who perpetrate it.
DeDoc
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by DeDoc »

Chilky wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:03 pm Neary and his ilk have spread a long shadow over the whole ecosystem. Regulators are now all about showing how on top of everything they are and demanding more and more in the hope that we'll forget they slept at the wheel a few years ago.

One example - an Asset Mgmt firm I worked at was audited by the Central Bank in early 2000s. Our IT audit consisted of 4 questions - one of which was did we backup our data (and it was a yes/no answer).
Our most recent set of regulations now requires details of how the external auditor overseeing the Business Continuity exercise was chosen. This level of ass covering has created a growth industry that can only add hugely to the cost margin. But none of them can or will admit that this over correction is because they were so incredibly inept for years.
Yep - I think many of us see examples of this everywhere. Instead of empowering people to do their job and putting serious consequences in place if/when they don't, we create this whole layer of 'compliance', so that people can point to the process and say 'not me gov'
User avatar
HighKingLeinster
Posts: 22692
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:58 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by HighKingLeinster »

normilet wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:19 pm https://www.thejournal.ie/jailed-carer- ... 7-Sep2021/
A WOMAN WHO fraudulently claimed over €69,000 in carer’s allowance for minding her elderly mother in Cork when she was living in the UK and travelling to Barbados and Morocco has been jailed for 18 months.
Probably a fairly common occurrence. What intrigued me was the top comment or two:
Not saying she was right, she wasn’t, but a lot of bankers did a lot worse for years and not one of them did jail. And a prominent ex rugby player is being charged with stealing €580k and I doubt he’ll do 18 months
It will be interesting to see what sentence Mr Mullin gets-??? just a slap on the wrist probably- is he still working with BOI ?? would not trust him — he should get at least ten years in Portlaoise with the high risk prisoners- one law for the poor and one for the rich- look at Rachel Allen’s son caught with over €30k drugs and got away with it- a few months in a detention centre – now he is up on social media as a very GOOD BOY a load of crap
Second comment is right about the Allens. That family get their fair share of softball sentences
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 42222
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Duff Paddy »

The Sun God wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:52 pm
CM11 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:30 pm This is the issue alright. Scamming the government is seen as a legit job for some and sure how can anyone complain given 'de bankers'.
I spent a rather entertaining morning in the courthouse in Athlone a few years back. I was there on a speeding charge that managed to get away from me but there were literally 2 dozen welfare fraudsters having their case heard before traffic cases...... Not pleasant for any of the defendants. What I took away from my wasted day was whatever you do, do not go in front of a judge having ripped of Ireland Inc. Do anything to sort it before it goes to court because judges ( this one anyway ) hate the crime and those who perpetrate it.
Yeah but how fast were you going
Post Reply