I watched it too Martin. They said that this loan will cost the taxpayer €300 million. However we did not need to borrow so much at this rate. The suggestion was that the main motivating factor was the political optics of it.

Well I am pretty sure it wont be you paying Martin!!

Yo@ Martin, you do have a valid point. I think personally that issuing these bonds was a good thing. We need and we will need liquid cash, whether it comes from our bail-out fund, the IMF, or from issuing bonds. We now know we can issue bonds, and there is a market for them, albeit at far too high a yield rate at this present time. The more sources we have for borrowing money, the less reliant we will be on the ESM or the IMF. The extra debt is of course bad, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, just as long as we don’t go crazy and start issuing massive amounts of bonds every month.

If bondholders still see us as in fiery waters they gona demand them type rates,but if we sort out our deficit on expenditure and get back to calmer waters and do not need to borrow huge amounts to cover deficit the rates will be a lot lower….

If bondholders still see us as in fiery waters they gona demand them type rates,but if we sort out our deficit on expenditure and get back calmer waters and do not need to borrow huge amounts to cover deficit the rates will be a lot lower….

Majority was taken up by US and European investors.

You’re right, its far too early to go back to the markets. It’s like being out with a broken leg for months, then getting up to prove you can walk before its healed, all the while wincing and causing more long term damage.

Exactly Creamy. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. This was pure PR at the expense of the tax payer. But then that’s what you get when a bunch of teachers is running the country

You think 6% is robbery? What do loan sharks charge? A lot more than 6%.

The rate was set by the millions of market participants – if it was less then the government would raise less (or no) money – if it was more we could have raised more money. Simple as that.

Raising the money early was the right move. There are many market participants who will be surprised this morning to read that Ireland raised a decent chunk of 8 year money at what they will see as a sustainable rate. That makes them more likely to lend to us later – and the more people think like that the more our borrowing costs come down.

I think your wrong there iBob101. Bond holders are loan sharks. They don’t care about our country, and who wouldn’t be interested in a 6.1% guaranteed return on your investment. We could have gone back to the markets at any point 7% 10% 20% there would have been interest at any level.
But why did we borrow money we didn’t need.

Also when it actually come to the point when we need to borrow the money the circumstances will have change either for the better or worse. But one thing is sure we are totally dependant on Europe so what ever happens in Europe will have a huge factor in our bond rates. I just don’t see the point for this bond sale half way through a bailout program that we are keeping to.

Should we have went back?? Honestly I agree with those who say no and yes both are right. We didn’t need to but as a long term goal going back early does send message out that we are back in the game to a degree.

I think it’s more a Europe wide thing to show that the bailouts can have effect and that Ireland as the posterboy shows all the eu can come out of this. I don’t believe the interest rate is excessive compared to what it was just before bailout. We still have along way to go. We are almost 5 years into this mess I guess any sign of improvement is good.

At the same time did we really need to go back just yet as we are on track with the esm.

Dddddddddd don’t knknknknknow what yyyyyyyyyou mean

You better watch out Paul !! … Mick I’ve just forwarded your IP address to revenue Collins , is the journals very own Internet policeman , he will report you !!!

@on the dole,Lmao…..or should I write Laughing my arse off

I don’t think we’re arguing the economics of bond markets and sovereignty. Its the timing of the bond sale and the fact that we didn’t need the money in the first place. We are half way through a bail out program that we seem to be doing well in, and now we just grew a pair of balls to try and prove what point? This bond sale would have been better placed in the first half of 2013.

When we get back to the markets we replace the troika with the fiscal compact only difference being we will be fined if we move out of line instead of withdrawing funds.

Simon, perhaps the lead in time was long in this case but I think if you look at how sovereign borrowing requirements are done its not a case of “waiting” until you need the money, in many cases borrowings are made well in advance of the actual funding requirements. The monies raised are then “warehoused” until needed. Yes the bail out in general seems to be going well but yesterdays move if anything has to have a positive effect on the progress of that bailout. I certainly don’t see what was done in terms of “growing a pair of balls” I see it as a small step in the process of exiting the bail out process.