.. i have been a shareholder of bkir since 2011... and for a long time.. there was no mention of this pension issue.. and now it apparently has some surplus.. it all depends on what accounting principles you look at this matter, or what shade of eyeglasses you are looking at this problem.. it is not a major problem as some analysts have mentioned..
very similar to the positions taken on brexit. .. you have to weigh all opinions and decide for yourself..
In my view Brexit has not much to do with BOI sp. more so the news about the German cent bank, and never forget sp is low enough to manipulate if you have enough money to manipulate.. big boys r doing so, they are making money on 0.004 changes. And it is a pocket chance for them..
Can someone explain the position re BOI pension fund? I thought it was in serious deficit. Howth
Pensions Authority issues statutory guidance on calculation of minimum funding standard Oct 25 2016, 08:22 IST/BST | Diarmaid Sheridan | Morning briefing | 1 page(s) | Read Important Disclosures The Pension Authority’s updated guidance is likely to see increases to the liabilities as calculated under the minimum funding standard. The minimum funding standard is the basis upon which contributions to a defined benefit scheme are calculated and differs from how the IAS 19 deficit is calculated as assumptions are not generally updated on an ongoing basis. Bank of Ireland’s main defined pension benefit scheme is currently in surplus on a minimum funding standard basis, with the liabilities likely to increase due to these changes.
YESTERDAY by: Ben McLannahan in New York A verdict by a California judge last week may have opened up a new multibillion-dollar litigation risk for Deutsche Bank, the German bank still in the grip of settlement talks over mortgage-backed securities with the US Department of Justice. The risk relates to claims from a group of institutional investors that Deutsche should have done a better job as the administrator of trusts that held residential mortgage-backed securities in the years after the crisis. Lawyers for the investors — led by BlackRock — claim that as those assets plummeted in value, Deutsche had a duty to return them to the originators, and order them to replace them with better loans. Yet Deutsche failed to do so, the lawyers claim, because it feared that if it took action within the six-year statute of limitations, it would trigger similar claims from other trustees administering toxic assets originated by Deutsche. According to a document filed last week in a state court in Orange County, Deutsche’s trust bank “discovered and knew of widespread errors, breaches and systematic servicing violations triggering events of default under the governing documents for the trusts, but failed to protect the trusts in order to avoid exposing [its] own misconduct”. Deutsche had tried to get the action thrown out but failed last week, with judge Gail Andler ordering that the case could proceed. The complaint relates to 465 trusts with a total face value of about $433bn, which allegedly suffered total realised collateral losses of $75.7bn. The claimants — which also include Pimco, TIAA and Prudential — do not specify an amount for damages, but a person familiar with their strategy said the claim could run to several billion dollars. Deutsche declined to comment. The action exposes another vulnerable flank for Deutsche’s US business, which is trying to reach a settlement with the DoJ over the way it sold mortgage-backed products in the run-up to the crisis. The DoJ wants to extract as much as $14bn from Deutsche but the bank is holding out for a much lower penalty. Shares in the Frankfurt-based bank have roughly halved this year, as investors fret over the bank’s ability to pay fines on top of its persistent losses and thin capital.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.