Bank of Ireland bosses face barrage of anger and eggs

[Bernkastel]

From the Guardian.

Executives at Ireland's biggest high street bank were forced to dodge eggs and a barrage of abuse at what could be the institution's last annual meeting under private ownership. In a sign that anger is far from diminishing, Bank of Ireland's chairman, Pat Molloy, and chief executive, Richie Boucher, were subjected to three-hour verbal onslaught from shareholders, including an attack by Gary Keogh, 67, who was escorted away after throwing two eggs at the executives.

He missed, but described them as "lower than bottom-pond insects" and said the incident did wonders for his blood pressure. He said he had invested €5,000 (£4,400) in the bank in 2007 and his shares were now worth just €40. The cash-strapped bank is trying to raise €4.2bn to recapitalise in a bid to stop the government – which currently holds a 36% share – taking virtual full control. The refinancing is being fought by bondholders, who are being asked to take haircuts of up to 90%, but pensioners at the annual meeting have already seen their investments destroyed.

They questioned what had happened to the €3.6bn raised last year and asked why they should believe anything executives say when they have "run the bank into the ground", leaving them with nothing.

Independent member of parliament Shane Ross branded the bank "a complete and utter shipwreck" and demanded those on the podium do the audience "the courtesy" of standing up and explaining why they were worth €390,000 or more a year. Molloy said he would "not permit it". One shareholder, who was alone in praising the bank for its effort to fight nationalisation, drew guffaws of laughter. "Figuratively speaking, you should all be taken out and bloody shot," said another, shareholder John McCormack. Others called on the directors and management to "resign in honour" before they were forced to "resign in disgrace".

Mary Clarke, who is in her 80s, said her "substantial" investment was now "worth nothing". She said: "You robbed the elderly; you are guilty of elder abuse." Shares in the bank have been slashed in value from a peak of €18 to just €0.12.
Executives also came under attack for continuing to pay bonuses despite government orders not to last December. One woman, who described herself as a staff member, said management had "no idea what it is like" at the counter dealing with people struggling to pay bills day after day

[bobalot]

I don't really understand. Did they do something illegal or immoral? If not, this is simply a risk of investing (i.e. your investment turns to shit). I can understand shareholders becoming upset but there is nothing that guarantees returns when you invest.

[mr friendly guy]

Arguably the fat cats don't deserve such high payouts if they under perform, and in which case they should be replaced by someone who can perform and raise the bank's share price. That is one of the reasons the shareholders seem to be angry about.

[Broomstick]

If the bank is failing why the fuck are executives getting bonuses?

If everyone else has to "take a haircut" then the fucking assholes running the bank should, too. Either work a year for €1 (after which their base salary could be reinstated) or get fucking fired and replace them with people can actually manage finances in a competent manner.

[KhorneFlakes]

If the bank is failing why the fuck are executives getting bonuses?

If everyone else has to "take a haircut" then the fucking assholes running the bank should, too. Either work a year for €1 (after which their base salary could be reinstated) or get fucking fired and replace them with people can actually manage finances in a competent manner.

This is the exact reason why I auto-facepalmed upon seeing the article - really, what were they hoping to achieve - call the unions, the poor, and a whole crapload of other people upon them?

Given the fact that the executives are getting bonuses, I imagine that their employees are going to be...unhappy. Very unhappy. And that's putting it mildly.

I hope the people responsible for this stupidity and outright asshole-ishness realise what they've done and come to their senses, but that's being a bit too positive, methinks.

[Broomstick]

One of the problems is that the rich view themselves as insulated from the unwashed masses. They actually believe they're better than the rest of us and somehow deserve better.

Whether that is actually the case or not remains to be seen.... at a certain point the peasants revolt, and they exist in considerably greater numbers.

[KhorneFlakes]

And that's why I like dislike most of the rich - they seem to think they should have more, when they already have enough.

I don't think I'm ever going to understand people like that, no matter how hard I try.

[Zaune]

If the bank is failing why the fuck are executives getting bonuses?

The usual justification in Britain is that if denied the bonuses their senior executives apparently demand as a matter of right, the large financial institutions will uproot themselves en masse and relocate to the Caymans or Bermuda, depriving our economy of their tax revenue.

Given their well-earned reputation for tax evasion, this probably isn't the terrible threat they or the Conservatives seem to think it is.

[evilsoup]

It's not only the Conservatives who believe that, Zaune.

[Zaune]

Point. It just never came up under New Labour because it still seemed like the banks knew what they were doing at the time.

[Starglider]

And that's why I like dislike most of the rich - they seem to think they should have more, when they already have enough.

A significant factor in this is that when people become slightly well off, they usually start socialising with people who are much wealthier. This suddenly makes you think 'actually, I don't have much at all' and fuels the competitive race to get ever more cash. This is particularly apparent at the billionaire level, where the incremental personal utility of more money is negligible, and competitiveness with peers seems to be a major drive.

[K. A. Pital]

This is particularly apparent at the billionaire level, where the incremental personal utility of more money is negligible, and competitiveness with peers seems to be a major drive.

I don't think even that explains it adequately. For example, why would anyone have three couple-of-million USD yachts? Instead of just one? It is kind of crazy, if you ask me. It is more than competition, it is deeply ingrained fetishism bordering on psychological disorder.

[madd0ct0r]

anecdote alert.

one guy i was working for.

he was worth 14million euros. He used to be worth 60 million euros, but lost a lot in two real estate companies.

he could retire tomorrow, but he enjoys the struggle. and boy, does he struggle. every penny, every dollar needed to be accounted for. He'd pay peanuts for the architectural design, complain he wasn't getting his money's worth and then demand to know why there was no liability insurance; when he'd paid less then the cost of the insurance for the entire project.

For him, it wasn't about the money, it was the processes of acquiring it. that was the fun part (for him anyway. bloody stressful for everyone else). It's like a gamer who finishes a game, but goes straight on to complete 'super-hard mode' or claim the extra objectives or whatever. The money itself is almost irrelvent

[Starglider]

I don't think even that explains it adequately. For example, why would anyone have three couple-of-million USD yachts? Instead of just one?

For the same reason that a car enthusiast might have three classic cars, or going further down the scale an RC plane enthusiast might have three planes. Human pyschology is largely relative to personal circumstances, from the viewpoint of a 1st century BC human almost all modern humans have unimaginable luxuries and no reason to feel poor.

[K. A. Pital]

For the same reason that a car enthusiast might have three classic cars, or going further down the scale an RC plane enthusiast might have three planes.

However, "car enthusiasts" collect cars. Are you saying they collect yachts? Those are new-built, unique large ocean-going vessels each costing over several million dollars. It seems psychotic to me.

Human pyschology is largely relative to personal circumstances, from the viewpoint of a 1st century BC human almost all modern humans have unimaginable luxuries and no reason to feel poor.

Even Rameses the Great who built shitloads of palaces and large statues of himself did that to strengthen his power over the people of Egypt, those were propaganda feats. Something socially useful.

What use does luxury competition serve, even in the eyes of the competing person? You said it yourself that for these people things have neglible utility because they have shitloads of wealth. The mere idea they are competing with their peers in an apish race doesn't adequately explain all the nuances of luxury consumption.

What if the things you buy will never be seen by others? The point of demonstrating your superiority is lost. By the same token you could boast that you bought dozens of factories - no one's going to see them anyway. Likewise, tasteless Medieval and Renaissance-like interiors in some of the ultra-rich mansions make you wonder - where does "competition" turn to mental issues?

[evilsoup]

Stas, these kind of extravigancies seem to be the norm amongst the super-rich. So it is wrong to call it 'mental issues'.

Man, I wonder if anyone's done a marxist examination of the self-alienation of the super-rich. Religion may be the drug of the powerless, but power seems to be the drug of the powerful.

[K. A. Pital]

Stas, these kind of extravigancies seem to be the norm amongst the super-rich. So it is wrong to call it 'mental issues'.

Shitting under yourself is a norm among the mentally deficient, too. That doesn't make it less of an issue.

[evilsoup]

So your contention is that being rich automatically makes one mentally ill? Shouldn't that take a lot out of the rage against the super ruch oppressors (they're 'mentally deficient', they can't help themselves)? Does that mean, when you advocate violent revolution, that you are advocating the murder of retards?

[K. A. Pital]

So your contention is that being rich automatically makes one mentally ill?

No. My contention is that ultra-rich suffer from gradually progressing mental disorders. "The being defines the mind", something like that. Besides, who said that psychological disorders somehow make one a "retard"? Psychopaths are not retards, for example, they just lack empathy. They are very smart and often completely understand what they're doing.

[Starglider]

However, "car enthusiasts" collect cars. Are you saying they collect yachts?

Essentially yes. Humans interested in some hobby often like to have several examples.

Those are new-built, unique large ocean-going vessels each costing over several million dollars.

'Several million dollars' is irrelevant. As I said, human psychology works on relative cost and value. If you earn 10 million dollars a year, buying one of these feels similar to buying a new family car. If you earn 100 million a year, it's more like a new computer. A significant but not particularly taxing purchase.

It seems psychotic to me.

Firstly, absolutely no one who does this would consider it to be an action that harms others. Secondly, you are hardly qualified to judge mental health. You probably think the money should be donated to others, but obviously most people do not believe in a hard cap on the amount of money they can spend on themselves however much they donate to charity.

What use does luxury competition serve, even in the eyes of the competing person? You said it yourself that for these people things have neglible utility because they have shitloads of wealth. The mere idea they are competing with their peers in an apish race doesn't adequately explain all the nuances of luxury consumption.

Either you are mentally deficient or you are being deliberately incapable of empathy. Essentially lower incremental utility means that larger and larger sums have to be spent to get the same linear increase in quality of life. The sticker price is irrelevant, simply project the psychology that you (or at least a normal person) would have about buying nice things. It's not as if the wealthy are some alien species with different motivations.

Likewise, tasteless Medieval and Renaissance-like interiors in some of the ultra-rich mansions make you wonder - where does "competition" turn to mental issues?

This is identical to tasteless working class interiors, just with more money. Human psychology is optimised by evolution for the survival and reproduction of the average neolithic human. If anything rich people aren't selfish enough (in terms of an optimum condition that evolution would converge on), most of them don't go on constant sex sprees and have as many children as possible.

[Norade]

I would argue that burning fuel in a massive Yacht for no reason and allowing people to live in abject poverty is negligence. In the same way that walking past a victim of a crime or allowing a small child near a pool unattended is. These people all have the means to do something that the common man can't and time and again they see fit to get themselves a new toy. I know the argument is that they'll leave, but pass a law making taxes higher, fix tax law to avoid the stupid easily closeable loopholes, and then freeze the assets of those who think they can run from the tax man.

[Simon_Jester]

So your contention is that being rich automatically makes one mentally ill?

No. My contention is that ultra-rich suffer from gradually progressing mental disorders. "The being defines the mind", something like that. Besides, who said that psychological disorders somehow make one a "retard"? Psychopaths are not retards, for example, they just lack empathy. They are very smart and often completely understand what they're doing.

I suspect the phrase Stas is, or ought to be, looking for is "going mad with power."

This is a fairly well known process among dictators, for example: the longer they remain in power the more intolerant and prone to turn on their friends they're apt to get. The stresses of the job, and the ability to do as one pleases without fear of retribution, are enough to warp a lot of people who might otherwise seem perfectly healthy and normal. Concepts like "normal" and "exorbitant" and "unreasonable expense" get progressively redefined until they've been twisted out of recognition.

Extreme wealth could reasonably have some of the same effects. Even if it doesn't, as Starglider points out, they highlight any fundamentally irrational things about our own behavior: the boy who takes care of pigeons turns into the millionaire who spends ludicrous sums of money on pigeons. Relative to his resources his behavior hasn't changed, but in absolute terms he's doing something ridiculous.

[Akhlut]

Either you are mentally deficient or you are being deliberately incapable of empathy. Essentially lower incremental utility means that larger and larger sums have to be spent to get the same linear increase in quality of life. The sticker price is irrelevant, simply project the psychology that you (or at least a normal person) would have about buying nice things. It's not as if the wealthy are some alien species with different motivations.

While they might experience diminishing returns on increasing their happiness via purchasing things, I gotta ask: so what? They already have an extremely high quality of life from which they should be able to derive enough happiness, while their gains should be used to help better everything else as a whole rather than basically being traded around to the affluent.

This is identical to tasteless working class interiors, just with more money. Human psychology is optimised by evolution for the survival and reproduction of the average neolithic human. If anything rich people aren't selfish enough (in terms of an optimum condition that evolution would converge on), most of them don't go on constant sex sprees and have as many children as possible.

Arguably. Humans aren't infinitely selfish, as we do have a large capacity for empathy, compassion, and aiding our fellow man. Such infinite selfishness would have been quickly weeded out by other humans who don't much care for that sort of behavior.

[Simon_Jester]

Either you are mentally deficient or you are being deliberately incapable of empathy. Essentially lower incremental utility means that larger and larger sums have to be spent to get the same linear increase in quality of life. The sticker price is irrelevant, simply project the psychology that you (or at least a normal person) would have about buying nice things. It's not as if the wealthy are some alien species with different motivations.

While they might experience diminishing returns on increasing their happiness via purchasing things, I gotta ask: so what? They already have an extremely high quality of life from which they should be able to derive enough happiness, while their gains should be used to help better everything else as a whole rather than basically being traded around to the affluent.

It's an explanation, not an excuse?

[Akhlut]

This is a fairly well known process among dictators, for example: the longer they remain in power the more intolerant and prone to turn on their friends they're apt to get. The stresses of the job, and the ability to do as one pleases without fear of retribution, are enough to warp a lot of people who might otherwise seem perfectly healthy and normal. Concepts like "normal" and "exorbitant" and "unreasonable expense" get progressively redefined until they've been twisted out of recognition.

Extreme wealth could reasonably have some of the same effects. Even if it doesn't, as Starglider points out, they highlight any fundamentally irrational things about our own behavior: the boy who takes care of pigeons turns into the millionaire who spends ludicrous sums of money on pigeons. Relative to his resources his behavior hasn't changed, but in absolute terms he's doing something ridiculous.

It is a real phenomena: http://www.economist.com/node/15328544

And, yes, having wealth is essentially the same as having power (how many super-rich people haven't been powerful?).