” If I were on the board of these companies, I would question this BOI recruitment. I would strenuously object to it.”

Really? But Minister for Finance Michael Noonan is the shareholder of 99.8% of AIB’s shares and 99.5% of PTSB’s shares, and he has positively welcome the appointment.

Maybe the public interest directors might kick up a fuss….

Data taken directly from Linkedin.

“”Banking Specialist
Department of Finance, Government Buildings, Upper Merrion Street, Dublin 2.

August 2011 – Present (1 year 6 months)

I was recruited as Head of Banking at Ireland’s National Treasury Management Agency to lead the recapitalisation by the Irish State of its banking system and to manage the State’s interests in these banks. Following a transfer of these functions to the Finance Ministry, I moved on secondment there in August 2011 to lead the equivalent function.

Head of Banking
NTMA, Grand Canal Street, Dublin 2.

May 2010 – August 2011 (1 year 4 months)

Group Treasurer
Irish Life & Permanent
Public Company; 1001-5000 employees; IPM.I; Financial Services industry

April 2009 – May 2010 (1 year 2 months)
Operated as Group Treasurer at IL&P during a period of restructuring in 2009/10, having previously been Group Treasurer from 1992 to 2000.

Group Finance Director
Ulster Bank
Public Company; 5001-10,000 employees; Banking industry
January 2004 – January 2008 (4 years 1 month) Dublin

Finance Director of Ulster Bank Group, third largest full service bank in the Republic of Ireland and No. 1 in Northern Ireland. Ulster Bank Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of RBS Group.

Finance Director
First Active plc
2000 – January 2004 (4 years)

Finance Director of First Active plc, a former building society, from 2000 until its acquisition by Ulster Bank Group on behalf of RBS Group. Was appointed Group Finance Director of Ulster Bank Group following the acquisition.”"

It would appears therefore that Mr Torpey has effectively been in charge of the State shareholding in banks since May 2010.

There are a number of questions that arise, mostly policy questions.

Why was the ‘Shareholding Unit’ moved from the NTMA to the DOF in August 2011. To what purpose was this? If the NTMA is the repository of State shareholding management expertise, why did the DOF want this moved?
Who made the decision to sell the BOI shareholding (at a 75% haircut in July / August 2011). Was the sale being blocked by the NTMA and was this the reason for the move to the DOF, who wanted rid of the banks at any price.

The ‘garden leave’ period is far too short. It is to be assumed that Mr Torpey now has significant confidential information about AIB and PTSB, competitors of BOI. If I were on the board of these companies, I would question this BOI recruitment. I would strenuously object to it.

The whole situation is most unsatisfactory.

The Government sold the CCNs on 9th January 2013, announcing a so-called “open book” that morning, and announcing the conclusion of the sale in the afternoon.

It seems clear therefore that the Government had a buyer or small group of buyers lined up and waiting for the transaction before the morning of the 9th of January …..

After the sale, the CCNs traded on a secondary market at a profit to the €1.01bn sale price achieved by the Government.

…..and it is also clear that these buyers entered into that morning deal with the expectation of profit in a resale. It would seem that the method of sale has cost the Government money.

Given this and additional “after-market” developments, I believe it is likely that some scandal-of-sorts has taken place over the course of this particular bond sale. At the very least it can be said that the circumstances of this sale are not likely to engender public trust.

Again, this is not to cast aspersions on Michael Torpey, it is not he after all that makes the rules and good luck to him.

Just on this, I would like to point out that senior employees in the DoF, work in the very institution that makes the rules. This is the single largest issue with DoF officials waltzing over to the banks. We cannot tolerate a situation where gamekeepers make or have input into the rules of institutions they may be seeking future employment from.

It’s bad enough for the move to happen, but for the Minister to welcome it and act as if it’s grand altogether… very disappointing.

A strict application of this sort of rule as broadly applied would prevent anyone “senior” in the ministry of finance from taking a job in a very wide range of occupations connected to finance, industry or tax i.e. the sort of things they know something about. I suppose they might be allowed to open a restaurant? Or perhaps we should pay them a salary for the two year cooling off period? or perhaps the idea is just to restrict their career choices so that they can be paid less?