VIEW FROM THE GROUND FLOOR: Why is it that so many investment banks put in a decent risk- management strategy after they've lost their shirts?

The entire World Cup portfolio is now resting on Senegal, the Irish portion having failed (valiantly) to make further progress. At the beginning of the tournament the man drew Senegal in the office sweep amid snorts of derision from his colleagues. We felt it was kind of symbolic that the Senegalese consider themselves African Lions, while the Irish still cling to the Celtic Tiger and that both teams were made up of players who plied their trade outside the country so we supported both with equal fervour.

Nevertheless after the opening match and their glorious defeat of France I was all for him cashing in the chips and taking the offer from a holder of Argentina who wanted to spread his risk. But the man has let his heart rule his head and he's sticking with the Senegalese while the holder of Argentina has now exited the market. I would love to see Senegal do the business and allow us to claw back some of the losses we've made in a variety of other trades but it's an unlikely outcome.

If the teams competing in the footie were corporate bonds I suppose the Senegalese would have been rated junk, while the Irish would be barely investment grade and the Spanish (curse them) would be AAA.

Investing in lower ratings is sometimes a white-knuckle ride. But definitely exciting. The directors of the UK's Abbey National probably wish they'd studied junk bonds more closely themselves following their announcement that they are writing off about £400 million sterling (€626.6 million) on their investment holdings. Some £95 million of that is due to the Enron collapse. Of course when Abbey invested in Enron the energy company had a healthy AA rating so it wasn't then the kamikaze trade it turned out to be. It's difficult to blame the investment department for putting money into a highly-rated venture on the basis of the analysis it doubtless received. In fact, the wholesale department responsible for these investments had been a big contributor to Abbey's profitability over the last few years.

The head of Abbey's wholesale banking, Gareth Jones, resigned last year and has been defending his tenure and saying that the troubles have all occurred since he left, blaming the company for not taking out credit protection. The new head, Mark Pain, assured investors that a suitable risk-management framework was now in place. (Why is it that so many investment banks put in a decent risk-management strategy after they've lost their shirts?) Mr Pain believes the business will generate good returns for the bank, although it's hard to believe that there's the remotest chance of the 17 per cent he's been suggesting.

But Abbey National is primarily a mortgage bank and the notion that it was also making large corporate loans through bonds is a difficult one for some shareholders to accept. Especially since it has cut back lending to first-time buyers on the basis that they are "particularly risky". More risky than junk bond issuers? Even though Enron didn't start off as junk it's clear that Abbey also invested in paper that was always rated junk. At least with first-time buyers the bank has an interest in the property. In the case of a junk bond issuer it has nothing.

Doubtless Abbey also invested in the dismal TMT sector where just about everyone believes things will get worse before they get better. At this point the telecoms have over-invested in infrastructure to meet future demand, having miscalculated badly on how great that demand would be. Now the competition is cutthroat as companies try to increase their market share by cutting prices and shaving margins, while the cost of those 3G licences are massive millstones round their necks.

It's hard to see when all the pieces of the jigsaw will fall back into place - when customers will decide that they actually need broadband and other new data services, thus allowing the telecoms to pick up a critical mass. If the latest announcement from Sprint is anything to go by, that day is still in the distant future.

It announced that it added 300,000 new subscribers in the second quarter against industry expectations of 700,000. Not surprisingly the shares were slashed by about 40 per cent.

Still, our own telecoms companies have their own way of keeping the wolf from the door. A mix-up on my credit card details meant I had to call Esat to process my internet access charge.

They told me how much it was and then said they'd be deducting that amount plus €1.66, which was also outstanding, from my card.

I inquired what the €1.66 was for. I was informed that it was a pro-rata euro changeover charge. I thought I'd misheard. What for, I asked. For systems, the customer care operator told me. What systems? I asked. Ours, he said. Further questioning elicited the information that this charge was to cover work to their systems for the euro changeover.

I expressed a certain disbelief at this but the customer care operator was clearly fed up with me at that point and told me that he was giving me all the information he had and that it was a company charge and that was that. I rang the Euro Changeover Board but it doesn't exist any more since we're all clearly totally clued in by now. So then I rang consumer affairs, who called me back later to say that the company was entitled to bill customers what it liked for providing the telephone service. But that charging for their systems change was somewhat "unusual".

Esat's own home page, www.esatfusion.ie, has a whole section about the euro changeover with frequently asked questions like "what will happen to my mortgage/savings/prices"?

It assures us not to worry but to be informed.

Nowhere does it inform customers that they'll be paying for Esat's systems changeover. According to the website, Esat now has one-in-seven domestic home-phone users as customers. Even if they only have half-a-million users, that's €830,000 from customers towards their "systems".

And I don't know whether customers who are merely internet users and don't have the home phone with them have also been charged.

The company proudly proclaims that it has 50 per cent of Ireland's internet market.

I admire their honesty in telling me what the charge was for. But as far as customer care goes, it's a charge too far.