Planet Rugby Forum

Liathroidigloine wrote:In many cases the attitude of the banks to kick the can down the road has worked. I have a number of clients who were in substantial negative position on properties. Had the banks made them sell in the 2010-2016 period then the banks would have recouped the low value of the property and then have the balance of the loan unsecured on someone who probably hadn't the resources to meet payments.

In most cases the negative equity situation has evaporated and the properties have now returned to normal values leaving the banks and the original owners in a decent position. The loans in these cases were non performing as the rent didn't cover the repayments and some might call it a strategic default but it was the most sensible play from the point of view of the bank and the borrower.

The banks have probably provided heavily for these loans and will in all likelihood sell them on for more than their "carrying" value in which case they will realise a profit on the transaction while cleaning up their balance sheet.

And the taxpayer soaks up the difference. Glad the mortgage holiday worked out well for your clients though.

Nolanator wrote:

The Sun God wrote:This City is getting unmanageable from a traffic point of view.... IMO it's the worst in Europe. I left Merrion square this morning at 12.00 to get to a funeral in Malahide for 1.00, got into the village at 1.20. 10 miles and 80 minutes at non rush hour. WTF has that LUAS crap done to the city ?

Shouldn't have a car on Merrion square when there's a perfectly good Dart to Mallahide.

I tried that line of questioning, I wouldn't bother. It doesn't go down well.

Calling it now lads - some proper snowy/seriously cold conditions coming out way next week. All the models are aligning.....

feckwanker wrote:Calling it now lads - some proper snowy/seriously cold conditions coming out way next week. All the models are aligning.....

Obvious goose81 bait!

But seriously the temperature really dropped this afternoon (or maybe it was the wind chill) and there was a like snow drizzle around mid day.

paddyor wrote:

feckwanker wrote:Calling it now lads - some proper snowy/seriously cold conditions coming out way next week. All the models are aligning.....

Obvious goose81 bait!

But seriously the temperature really dropped this afternoon (or maybe it was the wind chill) and there was a like snow drizzle around mid day.

It's only goose bait if it's the early hours.

Nolanator wrote:

paddyor wrote:

feckwanker wrote:Calling it now lads - some proper snowy/seriously cold conditions coming out way next week. All the models are aligning.....

Obvious goose81 bait!

But seriously the temperature really dropped this afternoon (or maybe it was the wind chill) and there was a like snow drizzle around mid day.

It's only goose bait if it's the early hours.

Birds are going to starve during this massive cold event, he's probably just terrified tbf.

EverReady wrote:

feckwanker wrote:Calling it now lads - some proper snowy/seriously cold conditions coming out way next week. All the models are aligning.....

I just licked my finger and stuck it out the window and it seems grand

*checks Kama Sutra book and checks if missus is still awake*

feckwanker wrote:Calling it now lads - some proper snowy/seriously cold conditions coming out way next week. All the models are aligning.....

Google weather said the same thing.

Just when I thought we were hitting spring. Guess the missus wont be arriving home then.

Bullettyme wrote:

feckwanker wrote:Calling it now lads - some proper snowy/seriously cold conditions coming out way next week. All the models are aligning.....

Google weather said the same thing.

Just when I thought we were hitting spring. Guess the missus wont be arriving home then.

Try not to injure yourself.

Nolanator wrote:

Bullettyme wrote:

feckwanker wrote:Calling it now lads - some proper snowy/seriously cold conditions coming out way next week. All the models are aligning.....

Google weather said the same thing.

Just when I thought we were hitting spring. Guess the missus wont be arriving home then.

Try not to injure yourself.

I've been doing some kegel exercises in anticipation.

Uncle Fester wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:In many cases the attitude of the banks to kick the can down the road has worked. I have a number of clients who were in substantial negative position on properties. Had the banks made them sell in the 2010-2016 period then the banks would have recouped the low value of the property and then have the balance of the loan unsecured on someone who probably hadn't the resources to meet payments.

In most cases the negative equity situation has evaporated and the properties have now returned to normal values leaving the banks and the original owners in a decent position. The loans in these cases were non performing as the rent didn't cover the repayments and some might call it a strategic default but it was the most sensible play from the point of view of the bank and the borrower.

The banks have probably provided heavily for these loans and will in all likelihood sell them on for more than their "carrying" value in which case they will realise a profit on the transaction while cleaning up their balance sheet.

And the taxpayer soaks up the difference. Glad the mortgage holiday worked out well for your clients though.

You haven't even the slightest clue what the real world looks like.

Liathroidigloine wrote:

Uncle Fester wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:In many cases the attitude of the banks to kick the can down the road has worked. I have a number of clients who were in substantial negative position on properties. Had the banks made them sell in the 2010-2016 period then the banks would have recouped the low value of the property and then have the balance of the loan unsecured on someone who probably hadn't the resources to meet payments.

In most cases the negative equity situation has evaporated and the properties have now returned to normal values leaving the banks and the original owners in a decent position. The loans in these cases were non performing as the rent didn't cover the repayments and some might call it a strategic default but it was the most sensible play from the point of view of the bank and the borrower.

The banks have probably provided heavily for these loans and will in all likelihood sell them on for more than their "carrying" value in which case they will realise a profit on the transaction while cleaning up their balance sheet.

And the taxpayer soaks up the difference. Glad the mortgage holiday worked out well for your clients though.

You haven't even the slightest clue what the real world looks like.

There are loads like him. Lifelong PAYE workers who just don’t get it.

I see Fester more like a stomping child.

He didn't lose his job so he should have been able to buy his neighbours gaff for tuppence ha'penny

Every sympathy for those who couldn't repay their mortgages. We've got to put something in place so that people like that are protected without taking the piss out of the banks.

However, I don't see why strategic defaulters should have any sympathy. You have a debt you can repay but refuse to do so just because you can? How is that justified?

Who is giving them sympathy?

The whole argument started because Camroc was implying that 14,000 mortgages are strategic defaulters.

Read 'acceptance' when it comes to sympathy for strategic defaulters. See Liathroidigloine's post above.

I don't read you but I don't think you're the type for the toss everyone to the wolves camp.

As Liathroidigloine pointed out the banks could not have taken the losses anyway.

Fester was advocating a fire sale and saying NAMA was stalling the recovery.

It's an odd argument.

The average arrears are something like €60k.

Most of the people I've represented have been paying off as much as they can. Strategic defaulting often arises where somebody has two or three mortgages and pays all the money they can on their actual house. That's very different to the small number who paid nothing at all.

There are people who did that, but there's a difference between a strategic defaulter and somebody who took out a spectacularly retarded mortgage.

The problem there is that the bank must answer for giving out spectacularly retarded mortgages.

I might be using the term 'strategic defaulter' incorrectly but I see it as someone who can repay a loan but chooses not to, so not quite AJ's example where they can only afford to repay one.

I certainly wouldn't throw everyone to wolves but as has been pointed out, plenty stopped paying their loans straight after it became clear that their house wouldn't be repossessed. We need a system in place that protects people who get into difficulty but doesn't let them completely off the hook while not putting them into lifelong debt. I guess that's one way of describing quicker bankruptcy but I don't think a normal person even thinks that way in Ireland yet and I'm not sure I want to go the American route just yet.

anonymous_joe wrote:It's an odd argument.

The average arrears are something like €60k.

Most of the people I've represented have been paying off as much as they can. Strategic defaulting often arises where somebody has two or three mortgages and pays all the money they can on their actual house. That's very different to the small number who paid nothing at all.

There are people who did that, but there's a difference between a strategic defaulter and somebody who took out a spectacularly retarded mortgage.

Some of the cases I'm talking about are where a self employed lad bought an apartment in Dublin for the kids to go to college at peak prices when his business was performing well and he had no problem meeting the payments. Suddenly his business goes to shit through no fault of his own as the factory down the road has closed and his customers are now in Australia. His kids have to get the grant to go to college while he survives on €15 to €20k per annum or ploughs his savings back into the business to try to keep it afloat. He keeps on a couple of lads despite not having enough work for them.

He rents out the apartment as he would be saddled with a massive remainder debt if he was to sell but the rent isn't nearly enough to meet the repayments and all the while he's paying tax on the rent. Gradually, his business starts picking up. Rents increase and get closer to the loan repayments, prices improve and he can see light at the end of the tunnel after 8 years of lying awake at night, trying to keep the Revenue at bay and keeping suppliers happy enough so that they will keep supplying.

That is the real world far removed from 5% pay cuts, pension related deduction and pay restoration. That was the desperate situation many ordinary small business found themselves in. Electricians, quantity surveyors, shop keepers, pubs, small manufacturers, car dealerships. The majority of these people are in their 40's and 50's and will never borrow from the banks again. Most of them havent put a penny into their pension funds in years and will suffer accordingly in later years. They are the real losers from the lost 10 years, not those who will receive a 1.5 X tax free lump sum and 50% final salary.

Liathroidigloine wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:It's an odd argument.

The average arrears are something like €60k.

Most of the people I've represented have been paying off as much as they can. Strategic defaulting often arises where somebody has two or three mortgages and pays all the money they can on their actual house. That's very different to the small number who paid nothing at all.

There are people who did that, but there's a difference between a strategic defaulter and somebody who took out a spectacularly retarded mortgage.

Some of the cases I'm talking about are where a self employed lad bought an apartment in Dublin for the kids to go to college at peak prices when his business was performing well and he had no problem meeting the payments. Suddenly his business goes to shit through no fault of his own as the factory down the road has closed and his customers are now in Australia. His kids have to get the grant to go to college while he survives on €15 to €20k per annum or ploughs his savings back into the business to try to keep it afloat. He keeps on a couple of lads despite not having enough work for them.

He rents out the apartment as he would be saddled with a massive remainder debt if he was to sell but the rent isn't nearly enough to meet the repayments and all the while he's paying tax on the rent. Gradually, his business starts picking up. Rents increase and get closer to the loan repayments, prices improve and he can see light at the end of the tunnel after 8 years of lying awake at night, trying to keep the Revenue at bay and keeping suppliers happy enough so that they will keep supplying.

That is the real world far removed from 5% pay cuts, pension related deduction and pay restoration. That was the desperate situation many ordinary small business found themselves in. Electricians, quantity surveyors, shop keepers, pubs, small manufacturers, car dealerships. The majority of these people are in their 40's and 50's and will never borrow from the banks again. Most of them havent put a penny into their pension funds in years and will suffer accordingly in later years. They are the real losers from the lost 10 years, not those who will receive a 1.5 X tax free lump sum and 50% final salary.

Afuckingmen

Grim Time to peruse publicjobs.ie for the day I think.

Oh and the portion of their pension that wasn't wiped out by the downturn was raided by Micahel Noonan to make sure every Public Sector in the country could bitch and moan about not changing their car every two years anymore.

Liathroidigloine wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:It's an odd argument.

The average arrears are something like €60k.

Most of the people I've represented have been paying off as much as they can. Strategic defaulting often arises where somebody has two or three mortgages and pays all the money they can on their actual house. That's very different to the small number who paid nothing at all.

There are people who did that, but there's a difference between a strategic defaulter and somebody who took out a spectacularly retarded mortgage.

Some of the cases I'm talking about are where a self employed lad bought an apartment in Dublin for the kids to go to college at peak prices when his business was performing well and he had no problem meeting the payments. Suddenly his business goes to shit through no fault of his own as the factory down the road has closed and his customers are now in Australia. His kids have to get the grant to go to college while he survives on €15 to €20k per annum or ploughs his savings back into the business to try to keep it afloat. He keeps on a couple of lads despite not having enough work for them.

He rents out the apartment as he would be saddled with a massive remainder debt if he was to sell but the rent isn't nearly enough to meet the repayments and all the while he's paying tax on the rent. Gradually, his business starts picking up. Rents increase and get closer to the loan repayments, prices improve and he can see light at the end of the tunnel after 8 years of lying awake at night, trying to keep the Revenue at bay and keeping suppliers happy enough so that they will keep supplying.

That is the real world far removed from 5% pay cuts, pension related deduction and pay restoration. That was the desperate situation many ordinary small business found themselves in. Electricians, quantity surveyors, shop keepers, pubs, small manufacturers, car dealerships. The majority of these people are in their 40's and 50's and will never borrow from the banks again. Most of them havent put a penny into their pension funds in years and will suffer accordingly in later years. They are the real losers from the lost 10 years, not those who will receive a 1.5 X tax free lump sum and 50% final salary.

All of this is fair enough. Balance that with those who will receive a 1.5 X tax free lump sum and 50% final salary who would have looked on as very many of the type of lads you describe above lived it loadsamoney large for a decade or more and laughed at PAYE grunts whilst doing so. Balance it with those non PS PAYE grunts who will not enjoy the benefits mentioned above when their PAYE days end; who may well be massively under or unprovided for pension wise themselves, who witnessed similar largesse.

Risk has its reward. It should -MUST - also have its downside; otherwise it's not risk and merits no reward.

There is nothing clearcut here. Case by case needs to be applied.

normilet wrote:Grim...Time to peruse publicjobs.ie for the day I think.

Definitely. That's my third significant recession and I have told my kids to make sure they are in a government job when the shit hits the fan.

redderneck wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:It's an odd argument.

The average arrears are something like €60k.

Most of the people I've represented have been paying off as much as they can. Strategic defaulting often arises where somebody has two or three mortgages and pays all the money they can on their actual house. That's very different to the small number who paid nothing at all.

There are people who did that, but there's a difference between a strategic defaulter and somebody who took out a spectacularly retarded mortgage.

Some of the cases I'm talking about are where a self employed lad bought an apartment in Dublin for the kids to go to college at peak prices when his business was performing well and he had no problem meeting the payments. Suddenly his business goes to shit through no fault of his own as the factory down the road has closed and his customers are now in Australia. His kids have to get the grant to go to college while he survives on €15 to €20k per annum or ploughs his savings back into the business to try to keep it afloat. He keeps on a couple of lads despite not having enough work for them.

He rents out the apartment as he would be saddled with a massive remainder debt if he was to sell but the rent isn't nearly enough to meet the repayments and all the while he's paying tax on the rent. Gradually, his business starts picking up. Rents increase and get closer to the loan repayments, prices improve and he can see light at the end of the tunnel after 8 years of lying awake at night, trying to keep the Revenue at bay and keeping suppliers happy enough so that they will keep supplying.

That is the real world far removed from 5% pay cuts, pension related deduction and pay restoration. That was the desperate situation many ordinary small business found themselves in. Electricians, quantity surveyors, shop keepers, pubs, small manufacturers, car dealerships. The majority of these people are in their 40's and 50's and will never borrow from the banks again. Most of them havent put a penny into their pension funds in years and will suffer accordingly in later years. They are the real losers from the lost 10 years, not those who will receive a 1.5 X tax free lump sum and 50% final salary.

All of this is fair enough. Balance that with those who will receive a 1.5 X tax free lump sum and 50% final salary who would have looked on as very many of the type of lads you describe above lived it loadsamoney large for a decade or more and laughed at PAYE grunts whilst doing so. Balance it with those non PS PAYE grunts who will not enjoy the benefits mentioned above when their PAYE days end; who may well be massively under or unprovided for pension wise themselves, who witnessed similar largesse.

Risk has its reward. It should -MUST - also have its downside; otherwise it's not risk and merits no reward.

There is nothing clearcut here. Case by case needs to be applied.

Mullet 2 wrote:

redderneck wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:It's an odd argument.

The average arrears are something like €60k.

Most of the people I've represented have been paying off as much as they can. Strategic defaulting often arises where somebody has two or three mortgages and pays all the money they can on their actual house. That's very different to the small number who paid nothing at all.

There are people who did that, but there's a difference between a strategic defaulter and somebody who took out a spectacularly retarded mortgage.

Some of the cases I'm talking about are where a self employed lad bought an apartment in Dublin for the kids to go to college at peak prices when his business was performing well and he had no problem meeting the payments. Suddenly his business goes to shit through no fault of his own as the factory down the road has closed and his customers are now in Australia. His kids have to get the grant to go to college while he survives on €15 to €20k per annum or ploughs his savings back into the business to try to keep it afloat. He keeps on a couple of lads despite not having enough work for them.

He rents out the apartment as he would be saddled with a massive remainder debt if he was to sell but the rent isn't nearly enough to meet the repayments and all the while he's paying tax on the rent. Gradually, his business starts picking up. Rents increase and get closer to the loan repayments, prices improve and he can see light at the end of the tunnel after 8 years of lying awake at night, trying to keep the Revenue at bay and keeping suppliers happy enough so that they will keep supplying.

That is the real world far removed from 5% pay cuts, pension related deduction and pay restoration. That was the desperate situation many ordinary small business found themselves in. Electricians, quantity surveyors, shop keepers, pubs, small manufacturers, car dealerships. The majority of these people are in their 40's and 50's and will never borrow from the banks again. Most of them havent put a penny into their pension funds in years and will suffer accordingly in later years. They are the real losers from the lost 10 years, not those who will receive a 1.5 X tax free lump sum and 50% final salary.

All of this is fair enough. Balance that with those who will receive a 1.5 X tax free lump sum and 50% final salary who would have looked on as very many of the type of lads you describe above lived it loadsamoney large for a decade or more and laughed at PAYE grunts whilst doing so. Balance it with those non PS PAYE grunts who will not enjoy the benefits mentioned above when their PAYE days end; who may well be massively under or unprovided for pension wise themselves, who witnessed similar largesse.

Risk has its reward. It should -MUST - also have its downside; otherwise it's not risk and merits no reward.

There is nothing clearcut here. Case by case needs to be applied.

PAYE grunts? Guards all driving around in Mercs and Beamers. Risk/reward my arse.

Our hardworking civil servants getting 20% premium above their non-secured private sector colleagues.

Risk and reward me nat king cole

We looked at purchasing some btls in 2006/7, and as mentioned here by me at the time, couldn't make them work financially without factoring in asset value growth. So we, luckily, didn't. Whilst I have great sympathy for those who found themselves in arrears, blaming banks for lending money is the wrong route to go. People entering any commercial arrangement need to do the work themselves to see are they comfortable with the level of risk they are taking on, and the consequences of things going to shit for a few years. Like Liathróidaíglóine I have also been through three recession/depressions, and working in the construction industry was always aware that what goes up always comes down hard. The best decision we made, when things started to really look up in the late '90s was to pay off our mortgage as quickly as possible with the intention of being mortgage free when the next recession came. Whilst people must have some protections surrounding their family homes, using the value built up in them as a means to finance what are commercial btls comes with very obvious risks, and I think there is a huge moral hazard in allowing people to essentially get mortgage free periods simply because they overextended themselves.

Nobody is advocating for that

Screw the narrative on here.

If you borrow money you are taking a risk. Doing it for your main dwelling is one thing, doing it for investment purposes a whole other. For the latter if you get burnt while obviously I have sympathy, thats what can happen to investments. Stop trying to blame others for your (in hindsight) shitty decisions.

nardol wrote:Screw the narrative on here.

If you borrow money you are taking a risk. Doing it for your main dwelling is one thing, doing it for investment purposes a whole other. For the latter if you get burnt while obviously I have sympathy, thats what can happen to investments. Stop trying to blame others for your (in hindsight) shitty decisions.

Another poster making up a narrative in his head.

anonymous_joe wrote:It's an odd argument.

The average arrears are something like €60k.

Most of the people I've represented have been paying off as much as they can. Strategic defaulting often arises where somebody has two or three mortgages and pays all the money they can on their actual house. That's very different to the small number who paid nothing at all.

There are people who did that, but there's a difference between a strategic defaulter and somebody who took out a spectacularly retarded mortgage.

That one is a bit dim. You can't pick and choose which mortgage you'll pay and expect the bank to leave that alone when the chips are down. If you use your PPR as security for more borrowing, you deserve everything that comes your way if it doesn't work out.

Uncle Fester wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:It's an odd argument.

The average arrears are something like €60k.

Most of the people I've represented have been paying off as much as they can. Strategic defaulting often arises where somebody has two or three mortgages and pays all the money they can on their actual house. That's very different to the small number who paid nothing at all.

There are people who did that, but there's a difference between a strategic defaulter and somebody who took out a spectacularly retarded mortgage.

That one is a bit dim. You can't pick and choose which mortgage you'll pay and expect the bank to leave that alone when the chips are down. If you use your PPR as security for more borrowing, you deserve everything that comes your way if it doesn't work out.

For a fella who professes to hate the church you'd have made a great Parish Priest in the 40s

Mullet 2 wrote:The problem there is that the bank must answer for giving out spectacularly retarded mortgages.

i'm liking this new leftie Mullet....i'm picturing beard, recyclable water bottle, listening to 2 door cinema club through beats earphones, ankle height skinny (although...) jeans

ticketlessinseattle wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:The problem there is that the bank must answer for giving out spectacularly retarded mortgages.

i'm liking this new leftie Mullet....i'm picturing beard, recyclable water bottle, listening to 2 door cinema club through beats earphones, ankle height skinny (although...) jeans

Dont forget vegan

and the craftiest of beer drinkers

I like me some John Denver and a medium rare handburger thank y'all very much.

There are 2 types of Debtors the can't pay and the won't pay. I have plenty of sympathy for people whocan't pay and will work with them but don't bury your head in the sand. I have no time won't payers, if you can afford to pay and still won't - F*ck them take the property off them.

Just got the yearly accounts for our estate, looks like 1 in 3 owners have not paid their management fee which means higher fees for the rest of us. I will be interested to see at the AGM what they have done to collect these.