Nama alternative/adaptation; Would this be a solution?

gerire

It's not often I come over to this nec of boards so go easy on me; The way I see this it's win win win all around? I know surely it can't e this simple so do tell me the error of my ways:



I have been talking to a lot of my friends recently and they have found a few faults in my thinking but in general think the idea is good and would have a huge voter pulling factor should something like this go ahead.

So the government has this huge wad of money borrowed to buy bonds etc; So instead of plugging 100% of it into toxic builders, who during the boom periods were paying themselves huge salaries and buying many properties for themselves and living the life fandango, consider plugging the money into the hole that has been created by the housing downturn and leaving so many of the young in the population in negative equity;

Take my own case for example I bought in December 06, for a price of 310k, have been paying off a 290k mortgage for that length of time, still owe, figures not to hand, in the region of 280 on a property that is at best worth 225;

So someone comes out and means tests myself and my partner looking at what is coming in and going out and how much remains in our pocket on a Monthly basis to live on; They use a tool to decide that, ok you have a 55k shortfall now, out of this NAMA fund we propose to pay off 45k or whatever of this. So now all of a sudden the bank has this 45k some of my debt, trust me I'm not a fat-cat business man, releasing some extra cash into my hands every month.

Put in some rules like it should only benefit those that really need it, if you went out and bought 4 properties each on the strength of the last you are not entitled to it, If you earn 250k a year you don't get a sniff at it;

It would in my eyes be a coup of voters for any party that would go down this route; We all know no-one is happy with either proposal of "Nama" or the "bad bank" this would be a method of going ahead with these proposals but while also greatly affecting the normal Joe on the street;


Now there probably is a major reason why this would not work and if so, so be it but if the country is going to go hundreds of billions into debt over loan money it would be a good way to show an interest is still there with politicians for their community

Blazer

Screw that...bad enough I'm saving the banks and developers asses but no way am I saving Joe fcukin Soap who borrowed money he can't afford to pay back for his house.
I made a decision not to buy a house as any idiot could see we were fcuked from 2 years ago.

Dannyboy83

Berkut wrote: »

Screw that...bad enough I'm saving the banks and developers asses but no way am I saving Joe fcukin Soap who borrowed money he can't afford to pay back for his house.
I made a decision not to buy a house as any idiot could see we were fcuked from 2 years ago.

I agree with the above comment.

On the other hand, I would have no problem with owners of single properties (i.e. non-investment properties) being refunded their stamp duty (if they paid any).

Many other people would tho (renters, investment property owners etc.)
Just creates a situation for too much strife.
Plus, I think you have to live off any savings you have before you can claim social.

SLUSK

gerire wrote: »

It's not often I come over to this nec of boards so go easy on me; The way I see this it's win win win all around? I know surely it can't e this simple so do tell me the error of my ways:



I have been talking to a lot of my friends recently and they have found a few faults in my thinking but in general think the idea is good and would have a huge voter pulling factor should something like this go ahead.

So the government has this huge wad of money borrowed to buy bonds etc; So instead of plugging 100% of it into toxic builders, who during the boom periods were paying themselves huge salaries and buying many properties for themselves and living the life fandango, consider plugging the money into the hole that has been created by the housing downturn and leaving so many of the young in the population in negative equity;

Take my own case for example I bought in December 06, for a price of 310k, have been paying off a 290k mortgage for that length of time, still owe, figures not to hand, in the region of 280 on a property that is at best worth 225;

So someone comes out and means tests myself and my partner looking at what is coming in and going out and how much remains in our pocket on a Monthly basis to live on; They use a tool to decide that, ok you have a 55k shortfall now, out of this NAMA fund we propose to pay off 45k or whatever of this. So now all of a sudden the bank has this 45k some of my debt, trust me I'm not a fat-cat business man, releasing some extra cash into my hands every month.

Put in some rules like it should only benefit those that really need it, if you went out and bought 4 properties each on the strength of the last you are not entitled to it, If you earn 250k a year you don't get a sniff at it;

It would in my eyes be a coup of voters for any party that would go down this route; We all know no-one is happy with either proposal of "Nama" or the "bad bank" this would be a method of going ahead with these proposals but while also greatly affecting the normal Joe on the street;


Now there probably is a major reason why this would not work and if so, so be it but if the country is going to go hundreds of billions into debt over loan money it would be a good way to show an interest is still there with politicians for their community

So you got a bad deal when you bought a house and now you want a bailout?

thebman

If failures go unpunished, no lessons are learned.

We learn more from failure than from success so I think people should have to feel the pain. So should banks and politicians though.

Riskymove

SLUSK wrote: »

So you got a bad deal when you bought a house and now you want a bailout?

indeed, i really dont understand the idea of a bailout for having negative equity

whatever about the issue of people who are unable to pay their mortgage and face eviction for them and their families...there I can see why people would be looking for something to be done...


...but in this case?

gurramok

I want negative equity on my car restored.

I want the rent I pay to be subsidised, lets just let the taxpayer pay some of my rent.

Another thing, if this idea was ever implemented, the international markets would crucify us as being dishonest and refuse to lend.

danindublin

Negative equity is not an issue for 99% of all people because they need somewhere to live, it really comes into play if you "need" to sell your house for some reason. It unfortunate that alot of people in Ireland overpaid for their property but you cant really calculate exactly what they overspent and compensate it. What would happen in 3 years time if these properties are worth more than they were 2 years ago, do you then owe the banks the positive equity?

Riskymove

danindublin wrote: »

Negative equity is not an issue for 99% of all people because they need somewhere to live, it really comes into play if you "need" to sell your house for some reason. It unfortunate that alot of people in Ireland overpaid for their property but you cant really calculate exactly what they overspent and compensate it. What would happen in 3 years time if these properties are worth more than they were 2 years ago, do you then owe the banks the positive equity?

indeed, this is my point, a whole mythodology seems to have risen up about negative equity and it seems to be mainly based on bitterness/jealousy

on the Frontline show about this matter Pat kenny himself made some comment about "if your neighbour bought his house for a lot less than you paid for yours" which is clearly just bitterness

I mean if you bought your house before the boom many of your neighbours had to pay a lot more/get huge mortgages but somehow thats not an issue!

Long Onion

Funnily enough now negative equity is turning out to be an issue for all the eejits who took fixed rate mortgage too, even if they don't need to sell, they are now at the mercy of lenders variable rates.

kevteljeur

As bad as I think the original idea is, a better alternative to NAMA is a 'Good' bank. The amount the State would borrow would be much less, it would be guaranteed to be paid back in the short-term and they could manage the problem that NAMA is supposed to solve: short-term borrowing. That's what the credit crunch is all about, short-term lending to business. It isn't supposed to be about property borrowing, which is the cause.

It demonstrates exacty why NAMA is a bail-out, as opposed to a solution to credit stoppage.


.