Fallout from the bubble

jmayo

bangersandmash wrote: »

This is the part I find incomprehensible. People will devote a huge amount of time organising weddings and parties, planning holidays, choosing a car, and so on. Yet there isn't enough time for the far more important decision of buying a home that will have implications for the rest of their lives.

I've been trying to fathom this aversion to researching a property purchase, and then I read today's paper of record...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/property/2009/1112/1224258649725.html

The resident property pundit ridicules the idea of researching a major financial decision by using some half-baked caricature of greedy buyers. They should really just get off the fence and leap in.

And then further down the page we see an article about excessive mortgages and debt-forgiveness

Exactly people spent more time planning extravagant weddings, their weekends away, their new Bmeer than they did in researching an investment, that they were going to paying for most of their adult life.
Of course for many it ws only another step on the path to riches on the mythical property ladder since property always went up and they would be flipping or trading up maybe in a few years like their older relatives and friends :rolleyes:

That story in the Times is truly shocking and just goes to show what utter muppets have been handing out advice on property.
That person deserves a swift shark kick in their probably oversized ar**, seen as they probably never get out and do any research themselves.

Also thank you for your other post in defense of my post.
As you highlighted I never said the banks are not at fault for excessive absurd lending.
Unlike the proponent of some new political parties you don't jump to conclusions.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So you're saying the banks loaned money prudently only to good risks throughout the boom? Or maybe the lending regulations were loosened to the point where they were lending money to anyone that wanted it, and they went ahead and did so? Its depressing that some people want to let the banks off the hook entirely, despite that we'll be paying for their profits for decades to come, after their irresponsiblity. And the people in question are already having their mortgage paid for by the state.

Did I ever say that, please do not twist my comments or try to attribute something to me that I have never said.
Then again you are a would be politco, so I can see how you would have difficulty reading things that didn't suit your agenda.

You can check every post I have on here and elsewhere, that the banks are not severly at fault for the business methods they employed that now has them begging the taxpayers for billions of funds so that they can survive ?

But my issue is that some people are trying to blame everyone and anyone for the fact that some people are now up sh** creek without so much as a chopstick, because they over spent recklessly, and wasted money they never had.

You appear to think it is all the fault of either banks, vested interests, government, basically anyone but the people themselves.

The banks viewed it as selling mortgages and the staff, from low down to very high up, were thus rewarded based on quantity and value of mortgages sold.
Lending regulations were as good as non existent and the government bear the blame for this.

This whole argument is a bit like the drinking argument where it is the fault of bars for people getting drunk, or the argument used by some fat, yes fat, eejit in the states that McDonalds were at fault for them being obese.
There is, or at least there used to be, such a thing as personal responsibility for ones actions.
It appears to have moved here, along with all the other Americanisation, from the very litigious US.
Always look for someone else to blame appears to have been the motto adopted by everyone from Taoiseach on down.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Theres a bit too much of the "blame the borrower to the exclusion of everyone else", to be honest. Yes, they cannot be excluded from blame and must be made to take responsiblity for their own actions (which right now they aren't), but that doesn't absolve the banks either. Far from it.

Some of the banks shouldn't even exist any more.
We still have people in high positions of power who were responsible for some of the lending decisions i.e. boucher in BOI.
Even worse the regulatory authorities, the dept of finance and the government have changed little and shoudl all be unemployed for the manner in which they allowed and fueled the bubble.

Stark

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Theres a bit too much of the "blame the borrower to the exclusion of everyone else", to be honest. Yes, they cannot be excluded from blame and must be made to take responsiblity for their own actions (which right now they aren't), but that doesn't absolve the banks either. Far from it.

The banks are now effectively debtors to the Government. Whether they'll ever make good on what they owe us is a matter of uncertainty but they're not being left completely off the hook. On the other hand, if we let homeowners off the hook, what happens when they've their mortgages paid off? Who owns the home, them or us? By rights we should own a portion of their homes.

Amhran Nua

jmayo wrote: »

Unlike the proponent of some new political parties you don't jump to conclusions.

Did I ever say that, please do not twist my comments or try to attribute something to me that I have never said.
Then again you are a would be politco, so I can see how you would have difficulty reading things that didn't suit your agenda.

If I was going to do that I'd be following people around and leaving backhanded and outright abuse when I thought they'd left the thread, wouldn't I.

jmayo wrote: »

You appear to think it is all the fault of either banks, vested interests, government, basically anyone but the people themselves.

Would you mind pointing out where exactly I said that, rather than putting words in my mouth and twisting my comments to suit your own agenda, although who knows what that is. Actually, you even quoted a comment from me that said the exact opposite in your post.

Stark wrote: »

On the other hand, if we let homeowners off the hook, what happens when they've their mortgages paid off? Who owns the home, them or us? By rights we should own a portion of their homes.

Just to be clear, in no way am I advocating a mortgage holders bailout, no idea where that came from, I've argued against it on many sites, including boards and our own forum. We need jobs and employment to pay off those mortgages.

RedPlanet

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Just to be clear, in no way am I advocating a mortgage holders bailout, no idea where that came from, I've argued against it on many sites, including boards and our own forum. We need jobs and employment to pay off those mortgages.

Wow, that's baffling given your earlier fawning over foolish people whom took out massive mortages on over-valued property.

Just a few posts ago you were claiming that the Security guard in Cavan was essentially targetted and coerced into buying his house.

It's ridiculous. There's no predatory lending going on in this country.
It's a phenomem in America. And by the way, in USA it's not the lender that chases you (for very long) to pay your debt. Nope, they contract that work out to a Collection Agency and they eventually will send out a Repo man to get back what is owed.
All that stuff in the article about the Bank sending a Financial advisor is just a biased story. Nothing in that article about the security guard being coerced to signup for a mortage.
Personally, i expect the bank to go to GREAT lengths to recover debt owed to them, BEFORE they come begging to the taxpayer to cover it.

Amhran Nua

RedPlanet wrote: »

Wow, that's baffling given your earlier fawning over foolish people whom took out massive mortages on over-valued property.

Allocating responsibility correctly and absolving them of responsibility are two different things. If you could point out where I advocated a mortgage bailout, please do so.

RedPlanet wrote: »

Just a few posts ago you were claiming that the Security guard in Cavan was essentially targetted and coerced into buying his house.

Thats correct. Perhaps predatory lending is too strong a term but its really not far off it.

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's ridiculous. There's no predatory lending going on in this country.

Loans were given to people who should never, rationally, have gotten them, and now we have the strongarm tactics to recover the losses. I can't speak for how true the statements made by the couple in the story are, but I'm not about to jump to the conclusion that they are lying outright with no basis for doing so.

RedPlanet wrote: »

Personally, i expect the bank to go to GREAT lengths to recover debt owed to them, BEFORE they come begging to the taxpayer to cover it.

I'd expect so too, unfortunately that was the first thing they did.

oceanclub

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So you're saying the banks loaned money prudently only to good risks throughout the boom? Or maybe the lending regulations were loosened to the point where they were lending money to anyone that wanted it, and they went ahead and did so? Its depressing that some people want to let the banks off the hook entirely, despite that we'll be paying for their profits for decades to come, after their irresponsiblity. And the people in question are already having their mortgage paid for by the state.

You seem to be thinking it's an either-or situation. It's quite possible to think that, yes, banks were irresponsible on one hand, while also thinking that there were a lot of stupid and greedy people out there who spent too much money and that they don't deserve to be all bailed out with other people's money.

No to corruption, sure, but also yes to personal responsiblity.

P.

TJJP

bangersandmash wrote: »

I've been trying to fathom this aversion to researching a property purchase, and then I read today's paper of record...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/property/2009/1112/1224258649725.html

The resident property pundit ridicules the idea of researching a major financial decision by using some half-baked caricature of greedy buyers. They should really just get off the fence and leap in.
(

Saw that too, I was quite taken aback by that piece of nonsense 'journalism'. While I'm not likely to go to the same lengths as suggested in the article there is no harm in doing a bit of research. If others had followed that path there might be a whole lot fewer people suddenly seeking to escape contracts they signed up to.

oceanclub

TJJP wrote: »

Saw that too, I was quite taken aback by that piece of nonsense 'journalism'. While I'm not likely to go to the same lengths as suggested in the article there is no harm in doing a bit of research. If others had followed that path there might be a whole lot fewer people suddenly seeking to escape contracts they signed up to.

I'm wondering how Izzie's friends have reacted to the fact that their introduction of the couple to her in order to get house-hunting advice has led to them being ridiculed and labelled "greedy" in the national press.

P.

bangersandmash

oceanclub wrote: »

I'm wondering how Izzie's friends have reacted to the fact that their introduction of the couple to her in order to get house-hunting advice has led to them being ridiculed and labelled "greedy" in the national press.

Fortunately imaginary friends aren't too sensitive about this kind of thing

JuliusCaesar

Hello? Banks are businesses and really shouldn't lend their money without being pretty sure they'll get it back.
If a shop decided to let people take their goods and pop in another day to pay, nobody would be looking to bail the shopkeeper out - they'd just go bankrupt.

But as we don't have a tradition of renting here, like in other countries - where they have a lot of safeguards built into renting like security of tenure - people have to buy a house to live in. Even the Councils were selling off their stock. (Mad Thatcherite policies adopted blindly by FF.) So somehow the population has to be housed.

We can't give the people in trouble alternative accommodation; make them homeless and we have all the associated costs with that; so they have to be helped.

Nobody knew WHEN the boom would bust. People were trying to buy somewhere before the prices went out of reach entirely. And with everyone doing the same, they felt they had security of numbers.

I'm not saying that some people didn't get carried away and buy places that were too expensive/too big.