by Ronan Coburn | Mar 15, 2016 | Topical in Irish Banking Sector, Tracker Mortgages' Scandal
A Conflict of Interest is something that potentially haunts members of the Professions in all democracies. On the Web Site of KPMG., (authors of PermTSB’s Tracker Redress Schemes) reference is made to a recent Wall Street Journal article1 and public comments by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Director of the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, 2 the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the SEC are “keenly focused on conflicts of interest” for firms in the financial services sector. Further emphasizing the importance of managing conflicts of interest (COIs), SEC Director di Florio stated that “conflicts of interest, when not eliminated or properly mitigated, are a leading indicator of significant regulatory issues for individual firms, and sometimes even systematic risk for the entire financial system.”A recent Sunday Times article disclosed that KPMG were paid €8.6m by Permanent TSB in 2015 for work on the state-controlled bank’s Tracker Mortgage Redress Schemes [TMRS] and other “regulatory and compliance projects”. The payment, equivalent to a substantial 3% of the accountancy firm’s all-Ireland fee income [of about €300m a year], provides the first glimpse of how a Tracker Redress Schemes scandal will cost Irish lenders millions in fees, on top of the interest refunds and compensation they will have to pay to impacted customers. The emerging Tracker Redress Scheme scandal, is rooted in the unfair removal of low-cost tracker mortgages from thousands of home owners, is also interfering with the banks’ ability to securitise, or offload mortgages as they seek to sanitise their balance sheets. Approximately 90 of the 1,372 customers offered compensation as part of PTSB’s Tracker Redress Schemes have...
by Ronan Coburn | Feb 15, 2016 | Topical in Irish Banking Sector, Tracker Mortgages' Scandal
Consequential Hedging Losses denial in cases for mis-sold products, have become center stage, particularly with their ‘Ugly Sister’ – the Banks’ Conflicts of Interest. In 2012, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) identified failings in the way that some banks sold structured collars, swaps, simple collars and cap products, which are collectively referred to as Interest rate Hedging Products [IRHPs]. The nine Banks involved agreed to review their sales of IRHP made to what are described as ‘Unsophisticated Customers” since 2001. There is no equivalent Irish scheme in place, although there have been instances of Consequential losses denial in Hedging cases, and related Banks’ Conflicts of Interest. The full review started in May 2013. The UK banks have nearly completed their reviews, having sent a redress determination letter to 18,100 businesses and paid over £2.1 billion in redress, including £464 million to deal with consequential hedging losses. The nine banks that are reviewing their sales of IRHPs are: Allied Irish Bank (UK), Bank of Ireland, Barclays, Clydesdale & Yorkshire Banks, Co-operative Bank, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander UK Out of these, four have had major commercial financing operations here in Ireland, but there is no equivalent Scheme in place for negatively affected Ireland-based commercial Borrowers. To give a perception that outcomes are fair and reasonable, the banks’ review of every case is overseen by an Independent Reviewer; AIB GB uses its own Auditors – Deloitte, as an allegedly Independent Reviewer. However on 20th June 2013 Allied Irish Banks, plc. (AIB) announces the appointment of the same Deloitte as Independent Group Auditor. This is a...
by Ronan Coburn | Oct 10, 2015 | Banking Inquiry 2014, Topical in Irish Banking Sector, Tracker Mortgages' Scandal
The Troika of the European Commission, European Central Bank & International Monetary Fund whom history will judge unfavourably, are part of the festering problem that is Greece. Even the IMF now owns-up to the established fact that the Troika has mishandled the problem of Greece, in admitting that the policies rigidly imposed were principally wage cuts & uncompromising austerity, with negligible attention to reform of state structures or product markets. Syriza’s main challenge is the residue of the scorched earth austerity policies of the previous 6-years. Reducing its GDP by 26%, and youth unemployment up to 62%. This position is described in a recent book entitled, ‘The Rape of Greece’, by Nadia Valavani, Syriza’s deputy finance minister. The EU-Troika forced a bankrupt country to take on additional credit packages, allowing foreign banks to effectively ‘dump’ their bonds onto Greek taxpayers, and trap the Greek population in sovereign debt slavery. As in Ireland, this process was expediently called a ‘rescue’ or ‘bailout’. Leaked IMF minutes for May 2010 stated that Troika loans to Greece, “may be seen not as a rescue of Greece, which will have to undergo a wrenching adjustment, but as a bailout of Greece’s private debt holders’. Syriza’s Manifesto, the Thessaloniki Programme demands cancellation of “the greater part” of Greece’s public debt. Understandably and justifiably it seeks a “European Debt Conference”, at which it would have plenty to say for itself. Mr Varoufakis recently told Paul Mason (Channel-4): “ you can’t have a monetary union that pretends it can survive by simply lending more money to debtor countries on condition that they must shrink their income”. This...
by Ronan Coburn | Sep 8, 2015 | Topical in Irish Banking Sector, Tracker Mortgages' Scandal
Because of a series of Bad Calls made over the previous 15-years, in a Tsunami of reckless lending activities the exposures to Bank balance sheets became such that the majority of Tracker Mortgages were a major source of recurring business losses. This has been particularly true of Permanent TSB., and its enforced commencement of its Tracker Mortgage Redress Scheme. To counter-balance this, the Banks [collectively and individually] evolved a Customer Handling Strategy whereby affected Borrowers were cajoled, by-hook-or-by-crook to forfeit their rights as Tracker Mortgage Borrowers. As a direct consequence of being very deliberately inveigled into moving-off Trackers, without being appraised of their Rights as Consumers at the time, Borrowers (to date, and into the future) have been charged very substantial volumes of mortgage interest. Indeed it has been demonstrated that in the case of Permanent TSB., more than 22-affected Home Owners actually had to under a forced-sale of their Private Residences. Scale of Tracker Scandal in PermTSB Tracker Redress: Recent media estimates indicate that what is now legitimately referred to as the Tracker Scandal is expected to cost PermTSB Tracker Redress, alone at least €35m in reimbursements to customers together with an additional €20m in Central Bank fines. Such mortgages are a carry-over from the pre-2008 Banking boom when Irish banks could borrow virtually unlimited amounts from mainland European banks at or close to official ECB rates (see Previous Blog on Government & Banks acted in consort to fuel reckless lending). Those days are long gone, and Irish Banks have been caught ‘with-their-trousers-down’ but the tracker contracts remain in force, with the recently-released Central Bank statistics showing...
by Ronan Coburn | May 1, 2015 | Topical in Irish Banking Sector, Tracker Mortgages' Scandal
Borrowers may have compelling reasons for a forensic assessment of bank documents. Disclosures can assist in defending themselves, their families and their Assets against Bank actions. Or perhaps challenging the historical lending activities & of their banks in terms of Banks’ conduct in applying their own lending & securities policies. Asset tracing undertakings in family law cases can also necessitate such investigations. In certain cases fundamental irregularities may exist in bank documents to such an extent that (if disclosed) these may either severely curtail, or even prevent the recovery activities of Banks & their legal teams. A starting point, prior to forensic assessment of bank documents may be to obtain preliminary legal advice to ascertain if there is likely to be a positive Cost Benefit Analysis outcome. Then a potential Phase-1 action might be for the Borrower to present to their Lender, a Request for Disclosure Letter under Section 4 of the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003. This letter can compel the Bank to produce file copies of all lending securities documents, within 40-days of receipt of such a letter. There may be key items contained in the disclosed bank lending & securities documentation. After a Forensic Assessment by an independent Investigator (with appropriate experience in Banking Practices, and Institute of Bankers membership) – these may flag further action leading to a more structured bank forensic investigation. This in turn may assist in the achievement of a balanced & all encompassing negotiated full and final debt...
