Housing Bubble Bursting

Agent J

Dob74 wrote: »

So should the banks look in the mirror and sort their mess out by themselves, our should taxpayers bail them out. Where is there personal responsability?

Might want to actually read what i said.

People are blaming the banks for all the woes of this situation.

They might want to look at themselves first and see if they did anything wrong first before trying to apportion blame elsewhere.

Anyone complaining about having X mortgage for X years is only complaining now because their "assest" has fallen in value. If the crash... oh im sorry soft landing hadnt happened do you think people would be still complaining? No they would sell their assest on and buy another house to make even more money next time.

Have i said that banks have no blame?
No, What i said was they were responding to a demand in the market. It wasnt smart to go down that road but the regulator did nothing and people were screaming for housing.

Nobodies hands are clean on this one but blame the big nasty banks if it makes you feel better.

I just really hope you dont have a 35 year mortgage(Seriously, im not being smart, i feel really sorry for people who took those out but i have to ask what on earth were they thinking when they agreed to it?)

K-9

Agent J wrote: »

Might want to actually read what i said.

If the crash... oh im sorry soft landing hadnt happened do you think people would be still complaining?

YEP, People would still be on saying "Buy, buy, buy".

Just look at the beginning of this thread, the signs were there, many didn't listen.

Dob74

Agent J wrote: »

Might want to actually read what i said.

People are blaming the banks for all the woes of this situation.

They might want to look at themselves first and see if they did anything wrong first before trying to apportion blame elsewhere.

Anyone complaining about having X mortgage for X years is only complaining now because their "assest" has fallen in value. If the crash... oh im sorry soft landing hadnt happened do you think people would be still complaining? No they would sell their assest on and buy another house to make even more money next time.

Have i said that banks have no blame?
No, What i said was they were responding to a demand in the market. It wasnt smart to go down that road but the regulator did nothing and people were screaming for housing.

Nobodies hands are clean on this one but blame the big nasty banks if it makes you feel better.

I just really hope you dont have a 35 year mortgage(Seriously, im not being smart, i feel really sorry for people who took those out but i have to ask what on earth were they thinking when they agreed to it?)

Dont forget the power of the banks. How many companies can get a spokesmen on any tv or radio show to push there products. People have acted stupidly but in the face at all the propaganda its easy to see why.
The regulator should have been looking out for the consumer instead of doing nothing. He was getting paid 260k a year and had an office of 380 people, so there should be no excuses. Unfortuneately the government only bails out failed banks not the people who bought at the wrong time.
The idiots who are in the key positions in this country, only job seems to be look out for your buddies in your golf club. Not to protect the consumer.

Agent J

Dob74 wrote: »

People have acted stupidly but in the face at all the propaganda its easy to see why.

Im going to zero in on this.

People acted stupidly(And i mean all sides the banks, the politicans, the people taking loans) for one simple reason.

Greed.

The Banks (well some of them) just happened to have more experience at it and did better out it. The whole thing was one giant pyrimad scheme but only when it collapses did people start paying attention to the people who were screaming that something was wrong.

You want people to go and lynch? McCreevy, Berie and Cowan first...

The people who took out the loans are going to have to take their pain on this one. If we just write off the debt and throw up our hands and blame the evil banks for their propoganda then why on earth should anyone ever pay back a loan?

Anglo in retrospect should have been let go to the wall but the regulator screwed the pooch so badly its not funny.

spockety

Seanies32 wrote: »

As opposed to simple personal irresponsibility and recklessness.

Not as opposed to , no, in conjunction with perhaps.

The banks 'should have known better'.

Boggle

People acted stupidly(And i mean all sides the banks, the politicans, the people taking loans) for one simple reason.

Greed.

What about the people who needed** to buy a family home - are they being greedy?? Cop on would you - these people were looking for a home not an asset.

RTE were like a soapbox where all there celebrity economists were allowed to constantly pound people with the simple message: "House prices are going up and will go up indefinitely - buy now or buy never!!"

Its grand for you and me who were able to source the CSO website and see the graph of how crazy the whole thing had gotten but normal joes didn't know where to even start - and considered "experts" to know better than them.

** They needed to buy a family home because there are no meaningful rental regulations in this country - how can you have rental regulation AND satisfy the need for flip-floppers?!?

Ally Dick

Firetrap wrote: »

I do blame the banks and the regulator, now that I think of it. They're not totally responsible but they do have to take a certain amount of blame. They should not have relaxed their rules for lending and chucked money at people.

First Active were the first bank in Ireland to offer 100% mortgages. At the time, the financial regulator was asked for a comment and he described it as "a grave and serious development". That was the end of his actions. Within six weeks, ALL of the banks had introduced 100% mortgages and the madness began. The financial regulator was the one person who had the power to stop it AND DID NOTHING. I'd imagine people like Bertie and McCreevey in Fianna Fail told him to shut up and let nature take its course. That's my guess anyway.

K-9

So does "let the buyer beware" not apply here? Obviously talking from a common rather than legal sense.

Seanies32

Seanies32 wrote: »

So does "let the buyer beware" not apply here? Obviously talking from a common rather than legal sense.

When there is a situation where "mass hysteria" kicks in, common sense goes out the door.

earlyevening

25/07/2005 - 12:32:19
The Government has criticised "irresponsible" new lending schemes that offer 100% mortgages to first-time buyers.

First Active and Ulster Bank announced the introduction of such products last week, while Permanent TSB is set to create a similar package.

Speaking about the matter this morning, Junior Minister Noel Ahern, who has responsibility for housing, said he feared the move could reverse the recent slowdown in house price increases.

"That is bordering on the irresponsible and I'm very concerned that this trend might start where financial institutions are basically being reckless in handing out money," he said.


« PreviousNext »

There were voices in government warning of the dangers of 100% mortgages.

Dob74

Agent J wrote: »

Im going to zero in on this.

People acted stupidly(And i mean all sides the banks, the politicans, the people taking loans) for one simple reason.

Greed.

The Banks (well some of them) just happened to have more experience at it and did better out it. The whole thing was one giant pyrimad scheme but only when it collapses did people start paying attention to the people who were screaming that something was wrong.

You want people to go and lynch? McCreevy, Berie and Cowan first...

The people who took out the loans are going to have to take their pain on this one. If we just write off the debt and throw up our hands and blame the evil banks for their propoganda then why on earth should anyone ever pay back a loan?

Anglo in retrospect should have been let go to the wall but the regulator screwed the pooch so badly its not funny.

The main problem isn't the people who bought a house to live in. But the investors and developers who are in it up to thier necks.

If you live in a house you will do anything to hold onto it. If you bought a few arces for 50 million an arce, you are just going to declare bankrupt and walk away. Move to your holiday home in your wifes name. Are they going to chase these people? I dont think so.

Sean fitz and anglo said they did nothing illegal. The media seem to have believed this cock & bull. Its quite scary to see the softy softy approach to these people. Why dont we know if he can pay this money back. 84 million is still outstanding on his debt and there seems to be no rush in getting it back

Ally Dick

earlyevening wrote: »

25/07/2005 - 12:32:19
The Government has criticised "irresponsible" new lending schemes that offer 100% mortgages to first-time buyers.

First Active and Ulster Bank announced the introduction of such products last week, while Permanent TSB is set to create a similar package.

Speaking about the matter this morning, Junior Minister Noel Ahern, who has responsibility for housing, said he feared the move could reverse the recent slowdown in house price increases.

"That is bordering on the irresponsible and I'm very concerned that this trend might start where financial institutions are basically being reckless in handing out money," he said.


« PreviousNext »

There were voices in government warning of the dangers of 100% mortgages.

And then Bertie rang Noel and told his brother to cop on and shut up....

Ally Dick

Just checked something out on Daft.ie. According to it, there are 832 houses currently for sale in Gorey, Co Wexford. According to wikipedia, the population of Gorey is 7,193 people. Eh, does this mean that every second house in the place is up for sale ? I must take a drive down there and have a look....

Caoimhín

Ally Dick wrote: »

Just checked something out on Daft.ie. According to it, there are 832 houses currently for sale in Gorey, Co Wexford. According to wikipedia, the population of Gorey is 7,193 people. Eh, does this mean that every second house in the place is up for sale ? I must take a drive down there and have a look....

I can beat that.

In Keshcarrigan in Leitrim there is 160 houses for sale. Kesh and the surrounding townlands has a population of 45. One pub and an empty Garda station.

Ally Dick

Caoimhín wrote: »

I can beat that.

In Keshcarrigan in Leitrim there is 160 houses for sale. Kesh and the surrounding townlands has a population of 45. One pub and an empty Garda station.

Clucking bells !

oceanclub

Caoimhín wrote: »

I can beat that.

In Keshcarrigan in Leitrim there is 160 houses for sale. Kesh and the surrounding townlands has a population of 45. One pub and an empty Garda station.

Sir, you exaggerate! Two pubs.

http://www.irelands-directory.com/Leitrim/Keshcarrigan/Entertainment/Pubs.html

P.

ronbyrne2005

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/property/2009/0205/1233713218660.html

Apartment price keep falling in North Dublin.

HashSlinging

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7871614.stm

HashSlinging

HashSlinging wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7871614.stm

I'm guessing that this is just a "blip" caused by the sale of a few high value properties rather than a general trend.

gurramok

While Nationwide said they went down by 1.3%!

Even they(banks, B/s) don't know whats happening over there

blast05

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm guessing that this is just a "blip" caused by the sale of a few high value properties rather than a general trend.

Based on your previous post, are you sure you don't mean "hope" rather than guessing

asdasd

Based on your previous post, are you sure you don't mean "hope" rather than guessing

id say it is pretty certain that property is not increasing in the middle of an accelerating recession.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm guessing that this is just a "blip" caused by the sale of a few high value properties rather than a general trend.

Of course, data that supports your point of view is correct while data that contradicts it is wrong.

Calina

I would say said data is not indicative of a trend, yet.

Come back in 3 months and we'll discuss it then if it's replicated.

gurramok

Gurgle wrote: »

Of course, data that supports your point of view is correct while data that contradicts it is wrong.

Care to explain why Nationwide said they went down by 1.3%?

Would that support your point of view?

321654

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/property/2009/0205/1233713218660.html

Apartment price keep falling in North Dublin.

Its about time that people realized that Northwood, Santry is actually closer to Ballymun than .... er Ballymun.

Calina

Calina wrote: »

I would say said data is not indicative of a trend, yet.

Come back in 3 months and we'll discuss it then if it's replicated.

So true, no trend in truly linear, in fact most are more sawtooth! we are just seing the other side of the "tooth" skewed by the ommision of repos & forced sales.

gurramok

gurramok wrote: »

While Nationwide said they went down by 1.3%!

Even they(banks, B/s) don't know whats happening over there

With the number of sales falling off the cliff, it's much harder to gain accurate "averages" as the sample data is much smaller.
The sale of one castle for example will skew the figures more than normal.

pearcider

Yep, lovely apartments...horrendous location. 190k for a 1-bed in one of the worst areas of the city is still a lousy deal.

pearcider

pearcider wrote: »

Yep, lovely apartments...horrendous location. 190k for a 1-bed in one of the worst areas of the city is still a lousy deal.

Even more so when you consider the fact that you could build a very nice 4 bed detatched bungalow (excluding land) for less!