PrimeTime RTE1@9.35 - Examining the Property Pyramid Collapse

Dubh Geannain

Sleepy wrote: »

Another problem comes when a lot of the generation who've bought 0.5 bed apartments at peak prices start needing a bigger place because they're having children. With negative equity they can't move...

Hmm, maybe it's worth investing in a bunk bed company

FYP :pac: In light of the shoebox apartments that were being churned out

ei.sdraob

Anyone notice how it wasnt a full special as advertised

and very "bearish"

seems like the developers/ea's who were invited to the panel to argue for "a bottom" or "turning point" bailed out

overall i think the show hit the nail on head, we wont be approaching same levels any time in next few decades at least (implications for nama) especially with people leaving

i feel sorry for that innocent (or dumb?) couple with the whole "rent is dead" and "they dont have 100% mortgages" line while living in mammy's house, its that kind of thinking that got us here


disclaimer: my opinions on housing might be biased since im in middle of building, but theres no debt involved since "mortgages is dead money"

waffleman

jmayo wrote: »

Great idea :rolleyes:

Lets absolve every eejit who over borrowed, because they had to keep up with the jones down the road and never factored into their equations that they might fall on hard times.
You seem to think that it was all the banks fault, remember it takes two to have a mortgage agreement, the lender and the borrower.

If you allow jingle mail and people to walk away from their debts, then the banks are left carrying the can.
That would be fine if the banks were not linked to us, the ordinary taxpayers of this country.
But we now as good as own them, and we will have affectively nationalised them after next round of recapitalisation.

Thus I don't want the banks in even worse sh**e, becuase Johnny and Mary down the road have handed back the keys and walked after borrowing 500,000 on a 100% mortgage to buy a property that is now worth less than half of that.
What about people who were buy to letters, should they be allowed walk away and leave the sh** for other people.

Why should I (and my kids), and many others who didn't go nuts on the gravy train property ladder, be left carrying the can for the borrowers unresponsible actions and often greed ?
It is enough we are left holding the cr** loans and paying for the incompetence and greed of the bankers, the EAs, the builders.


This type of talk and the talk of personal bailouts for buyers over the last few years is cra**ing down on those citizens of this country who acted responsibly and will thus ensure some people never learn.

Here's what I took from Sand's post: "make the banks more accountable going forward so this doesnt happen again". I certainly dont want to see people who borrowed carelessly be able to write off their loans. Although the government are letting big developers currently do this (to a certain extent) if we made the banks shoulder more risk then no-one would be able to borrow beyond their means in the first place. Sounds good to me.

baalthor

jmayo wrote: »

Great idea :rolleyes:

Lets absolve every eejit who over borrowed, because they had to keep up with the jones down the road and never factored into their equations that they might fall on hard times.
You seem to think that it was all the banks fault, remember it takes two to have a mortgage agreement, the lender and the borrower.

If you allow jingle mail and people to walk away from their debts, then the banks are left carrying the can.
That would be fine if the banks were not linked to us, the ordinary taxpayers of this country.
But we now as good as own them, and we will have affectively nationalised them after next round of recapitalisation.

Thus I don't want the banks in even worse sh**e, becuase Johnny and Mary down the road have handed back the keys and walked after borrowing 500,000 on a 100% mortgage to buy a property that is now worth less than half of that.
What about people who were buy to letters, should they be allowed walk away and leave the sh** for other people.

Why should I (and my kids), and many others who didn't go nuts on the gravy train property ladder, be left carrying the can for the borrowers unresponsible actions and often greed ?
It is enough we are left holding the cr** loans and paying for the incompetence and greed of the bankers, the EAs, the builders.


This type of talk and the talk of personal bailouts for buyers over the last few years is cra**ing down on those citizens of this country who acted responsibly and will thus ensure some people never learn.

His point is that revised bankruptcy laws would make the banks more conservative in their lending practices i.e. they would only lend to people who they were pretty sure would be able to pay the loan back, they would also require bigger deposits.

The only problem with this is that if the banks lend more conservatively then certain sections of the population are less likely to be approved for loans or may be charged higher interest rates (since they are higher risk).
This can cause their public representatives to becomes upset and pass laws requiring the banks to lend to them anyway on the same basis as everyone else.
This seems to have happened in the US and has contributed to their property bubble even though they have consumer-friendly bankruptcy laws.

ardmacha

The only problem with this is that if the banks lend more conservatively then certain sections of the population are less likely to be approved for loans or may be charged higher interest rates (since they are higher risk).

The one lesson that should come out of this crisis is that it is madness to lend money to people who can only pay it back in the most optimistic of circumstances. Passing laws to let them do so may work in the short term, but will lead to even bigger problems in the long term.

Duckjob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i feel sorry for that innocent (or dumb?) couple with the whole "rent is dead" and "they dont have 100% mortgages" line while living in mammy's house, its that kind of thinking that got us here

I have a certain amount of sympathy for those that got caught in the height of the madness and now find themselves in bother due to unemployment etc.
But today, with nearly 2yrs since the start of the downturn? I mean c'mon.

Anyone who still trots out the same old crap about rent being dead money and paying someone elses mortgage, without bothering to spend the 5 minutes with pen and paper doing the sums on that would blow those cliches out of the water, is just thick as dried sh*t tbh.

The annoying thing is many of those cretins will be keep pushing until they find someone willing to lend to them at any cost. Then they'll be the media sob stories of the next few years looking for bailouts for their stupidity.

P. Breathnach

Duckjob wrote: »

I have a certain amount of sympathy for those that got caught in the height of the madness and now find themselves in bother due to unemployment etc.
But today, with nearly 2yrs since the start of the downturn? I mean c'mon.

Anyone who still trots out the same old crap about rent being dead money and paying someone elses mortgage, without bothering to spend the 5 minutes with pen and paper doing the sums on that would blow those cliches out of the water, is just thick as dried sh*t tbh.

The annoying thing is many of those cretins will be keep pushing until they find someone willing to lend to them at any cost. Then they'll be the media sob stories of the next few years looking for bailouts for their stupidity.

I think that a more compassionate tone might be welcome. Calling people cretins and describing them as being as thick as dried sh*t is very harsh.

For years we (meaning Irish people in general, with a few exceptions) held as conventional wisdom that property prices would continue to rise. Then, when it became obvious that there was some kind of upper limit, the "soft landing" was invented. We now now that it wasn't very soft.

While we have people here who congratulate themselves on not having purchased in an over-priced market, the truth is that the general pattern was that people did buy -- else we would not have had that overheated market. So the question is: who gave them the confidence to make decisions that we now know to have been bad ones? The answer is everybody, bar a handful of people whose views were not taken seriously. You can point at a few groups like bankers, politicians, developers, auctioneers, property journalists, and others, and say they were particularly culpable, and I won't disagree with you. But Uncle Jim and Betty next door and the guys in the office and the gang in the pub were also feeding into the myth.

So with that great weight of wisdom behind them, I am not surprised that many couples still have the dream of their own property and a mortgage, especially as property has been falling in price. I am sure that some think along the lines of "at €400k it would have been out of reach, but at €250k it looks manageable".

Whatever level the market settles at, there will be people for whom the price is just out of reach, but who fail to see that. They are not necessarily cretins, just people with a dream. It would be wrong to facilitate them would a loan they cannot service, and that seems to be what is happening. It's just a pity it did not happen a few years ago.

Duckjob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think that a more compassionate tone might be welcome. Calling people cretins and describing them as being as thick as dried sh*t is very harsh.

For years we (meaning Irish people in general, with a few exceptions) held as conventional wisdom that property prices would continue to rise. Then, when it became obvious that there was some kind of upper limit, the "soft landing" was invented. We now now that it wasn't very soft.

While we have people here who congratulate themselves on not having purchased in an over-priced market, the truth is that the general pattern was that people did buy -- else we would not have had that overheated market. So the question is: who gave them the confidence to make decisions that we now know to have been bad ones? The answer is everybody, bar a handful of people whose views were not taken seriously. You can point at a few groups like bankers, politicians, developers, auctioneers, property journalists, and others, and say they were particularly culpable, and I won't disagree with you. But Uncle Jim and Betty next door and the guys in the office and the gang in the pub were also feeding into the myth.

So with that great weight of wisdom behind them, I am not surprised that many couples still have the dream of their own property and a mortgage, especially as property has been falling in price. I am sure that some think along the lines of "at €400k it would have been out of reach, but at €250k it looks manageable".

Whatever level the market settles at, there will be people for whom the price is just out of reach, but who fail to see that. They are not necessarily cretins, just people with a dream. It would be wrong to facilitate them would a loan they cannot service, and that seems to be what is happening. It's just a pity it did not happen a few years ago.

As I said, I have compassion for those who got caught up in the hype and hysteria and I don't congratulate myself for not buying (more like I thank my lucky stars).

I certainly don't call anyone who aspires to buy in the near future a cretin.
By beef is with people who though armed with the hindsight of the last 2 years, still refuse to apply any analytical thinking to their financial decisions and instead rely on the old cliches that we heard ad nauseum for years.

You can have endless compassion for these people if you choose, but ultimately there our economy faces financially realities to compete with the world economies.

At some point we need to insist that people cop the f**k on and start taking responsibility for their financial decisions.Providing endless compassion and financial forgiveness to these people will sink our country.

jmayo

waffleman wrote: »

Here's what I took from Sand's post: "make the banks more accountable going forward so this doesnt happen again". I certainly dont want to see people who borrowed carelessly be able to write off their loans. Although the government are letting big developers currently do this (to a certain extent) if we made the banks shoulder more risk then no-one would be able to borrow beyond their means in the first place. Sounds good to me.

Read what exactly sand says in the post.

Sand wrote: »

Reform bankruptcy laws so that borrowers can return the keys to the bank and walk away from the debt.

What sand is syaing is that people should be allowed walk away from their debts and dump them on someone else.
This is making the old Irish assumption about there being some mythical system that is in charge that you can screw over.
Except the f***ing system is you, me, every other citizen and even sand. :mad:

Sand and you appear to think this would be good lesson to the banks and make them more conservative in their lending in future.
Except you are forgetting one BIG thing.
The worse the banks debts, the more toxic assets they hold as securties on defaulted loans, the worse their balance sheet.

This would be fine if we don't care if a financial institution goes under, but we are tied through bank guarantee of them all, ownership of one and recapitalisation of the big two.

We have to recapitalise the big two further meaning we will have affectively nationalised them and thus more we the taxpayers have to cough up if they have even bigger debts.

baalthor wrote: »

His point is that revised bankruptcy laws would make the banks more conservative in their lending practices i.e. they would only lend to people who they were pretty sure would be able to pay the loan back, they would also require bigger deposits.

The only problem with this is that if the banks lend more conservatively then certain sections of the population are less likely to be approved for loans or may be charged higher interest rates (since they are higher risk).
This can cause their public representatives to becomes upset and pass laws requiring the banks to lend to them anyway on the same basis as everyone else.
This seems to have happened in the US and has contributed to their property bubble even though they have consumer-friendly bankruptcy laws.

It is all well and good changing lending practices going forward, but if we absolve a huge chunk of our population of their debts, dump those bad debts on our financial institutions we are screwing the entire country.
I am sorry but I am not willing to pay more taxes, face more cuts so that somebody who overspent and signed up for massive loans can now walk away.

If that comes to pass why shouldn't I, or one of my family, go out and get big loan and then default on them.

Certain sections of the population shoudl never have gotten massive loans in the first place.
But there is another side to this, the people themselves should have known that they were taking on too big a risk.
People have to take responsibility for their actions.

That was what cuased the massive subprime fiasco in the states where ninjas were getting loans to buy homes, all pushed by the administration's desire to increase ownership.
The loans were all packaged up and thanks to the lax regulation, poor ratings agencies (the same ones that downgrade Ireland every few months) and clever thinking of financial whizzkids, the loans were passed off as gilt edge investable products.

P. Breathnach

What sand is syaing is that people should be allowed walk away from their debts and dump them on someone else.

Sand is discussing changing the law. Changes like that do not have retrospective effect, so I take the suggestion as being one for future practice. Let's face it: banks encouraged people to borrow recklessly, and they we facilitated in that by the knowledge that not only was the loan secured on the property, but by a claim on any other assets the borrower had, and on future income. Had more of the risk lain with the bank, they would almost certainly have been more conservative in their lending.

I think it is the way we should go in the future.

deadinterest

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Sand is discussing changing the law. Changes like that do not have retrospective effect, so I take the suggestion as being one for future practice. Let's face it: banks encouraged people to borrow recklessly, and they we facilitated in that by the knowledge that not only was the loan secured on the property, but by a claim on any other assets the borrower had, and on future income. Had more of the risk lain with the bank, they would almost certainly have been more conservative in their lending.

I think it is the way we should go in the future.

Agree 100% with everything you said in this topic, personal responsibility is overrated, as is financial literacy. It's not as if buying a house is a big decison, Estate Agents and mortgage brokers aren't on a salary, they thrive and have orgasms when they see couple buy their dream home or see them reaching for the property ladder. Who needs to save, someone in their mid 20's is entitled to a home. You should open a bank. I'm sure the people in negative equity would just as easily paid tax on their property when they could only go up if there was no crash.

gurramok

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Let's face it: banks encouraged people to borrow recklessly, and they we facilitated in that by the knowledge that not only was the loan secured on the property, but by a claim on any other assets the borrower had, and on future income. Had more of the risk lain with the bank, they would almost certainly have been more conservative in their lending.

I think it is the way we should go in the future.

A bit of common sense would have prevailed. Banks ain't people's friends, they want as much money out of you as possible. The 35yr mortgage is a classic example of this, adding an extra 10 yrs to a standard 25yr mortgage reeks in huge profit for a bank.

They failed to research the biggest financial transaction of their lives and dearly paying for it.

Paying half million for a standard corpo house or a standard apt in one of the cities would have rang alarm bells in people who would have had a bit of cop-on.

The likes of Dublin, Cork & Galway were never Manhattan despite having prices like Manhattan.

deadinterest wrote:

Agree 100% with everything you said in this topic, personal responsibility is overrated, as is financial literacy. It's not as if buying a house is a big decison, Estate Agents and mortgage brokers aren't on a salary, they thrive and have orgasms when they see couple buy their dream home or see them reaching for the property ladder. Who needs to save, someone in their mid 20's is entitled to a home. You should open a bank. I'm sure the people in negative equity would just as easily paid tax on their property when they could only go up if there was no crash.

Just like a car salesman is on commission, he will praise your choice of car and sell it to you at the biggest price possible for his commission. Its up to the buyer to research that make and model of car to decide for themselves if that car is worth paying for at the price agreed.

Idbatterim

I dont think anyone should be allowed just walk away or default on loans, they should be made pay back every red cent! The Sindo has recently had a few articles on how beneficial it would be to get rid of stamp duty for those looking to up or down size! this would atleast get some life into the property market. I do agree that it would be moronic to buy in a falling market! no one even knows if this state will be solvent in a year or two! And only about 300k of us have the absolute luxury of knowing we are on the pigs back! The way things are in the private sector very very few are absolutely safe!

Idbatterim

rent will have to fall massively, landlords wont / are not in a position to name their price anymore! Id say many homeowners will move home possibly with parents and rent out their house! Ho wnayone actually belived the PROPOGANDA of all involved i.e the banks, estate agents, and newspapers who were all scratching each others back is unbelievable? When interest rates start to rise, does anyone know how much each percentage point rise will work out at in euro for total Irish mortgage debt?

population

I bought my house in 2003 and had made a strict budgetary decision that I would never break the 200k mark because simply put I did not think I could pay that amount back in my lifetime with my earning potential. I paid 177k for a place but the bank once they had agreed to finance the mortgage were prepared to give me up to another 35k if I wanted it for "moving in costs" etc.

I thought this was a wind up. I was personally stress testing my own finances and the bank wasn't???

I would like to add however that I have nothing but sympathy for those who bought right at the top of the market and I think some of the Schadenfreude I have seen needs to take a back seat. I am not saying "lets forget how this all happened" like some NAMA giddy FFer, but I do think there are people out there with kids who only bought to have a house in which to raise a family in and the fact remains that their circumstances dictated to buy in 2006 and houses cost what they cost back then.

ednwireland

Sand wrote: »

Reform bankruptcy laws so that borrowers can return the keys to the bank and walk away from the debt.

That would put the risk onto the banks, with their decades of economic and financial expertise to guide them, which would act as a bit of a check on property bubbles given banks would have a real incentive not to lend into a bubble.
/QUOTE]
i beleive this is the case in america - worked well there ?

waffleman

jmayo wrote: »

.
What sand is syaing is that people should be allowed walk away from their debts and dump them on someone else.
This is making the old Irish assumption about there being some mythical system that is in charge that you can screw over.
Except the f***ing system is you, me, every other citizen and even sand. :mad:

Sand and you appear to think this would be good lesson to the banks and make them more conservative in their lending in future.
Except you are forgetting one BIG thing.
The worse the banks debts, the more toxic assets they hold as securties on defaulted loans, the worse their balance sheet.

This would be fine if we don't care if a financial institution goes under, but we are tied through bank guarantee of them all, ownership of one and recapitalisation of the big two.

We have to recapitalise the big two further meaning we will have affectively nationalised them and thus more we the taxpayers have to cough up if they have even bigger debts.

Ok I agree with you but as long as people can borrow ridiculous amounts of money they will - I know of people who would still take a 100% mortgage now if they could. Certain people won't change unless they are forced to. Our banks will lend like cowboys until they are forced to take some responsibilty.

They are not held to account enough at present. I don't want to spend the rest of my life paying for banks lending like maniacs and people joining in because they feel they have to - I say make the banks more accountable for home loans approved STARTING TODAY - what's your alternative? another NAMA in 30 years?

deadinterest

waffleman wrote: »

Ok I agree with you but as long as people can borrow ridiculous amounts of money they will - I know of people who would still take a 100% mortgage now if they could. Certain people won't change unless they are forced to. Our banks will lend like cowboys until they are forced to take some responsibilty.

They are not held to account enough at present. I don't want to spend the rest of my life paying for banks lending like maniacs and people joining in because they feel they have to - I say make the banks more accountable for home loans approved STARTING TODAY - what's your alternative? another NAMA in 30 years?

rent is not dead money
new regulator
people grow extra brain cells and elect representatives who are competent (also stops idiotic protest votes at referendums)
read a five year olds math books, preferably learn to use excel and see how much interest costs

nesf

Duckjob wrote: »

I have a certain amount of sympathy for those that got caught in the height of the madness and now find themselves in bother due to unemployment etc.
But today, with nearly 2yrs since the start of the downturn? I mean c'mon.

Anyone who still trots out the same old crap about rent being dead money and paying someone elses mortgage, without bothering to spend the 5 minutes with pen and paper doing the sums on that would blow those cliches out of the water, is just thick as dried sh*t tbh.

The annoying thing is many of those cretins will be keep pushing until they find someone willing to lend to them at any cost. Then they'll be the media sob stories of the next few years looking for bailouts for their stupidity.

Please don't lower the tone of this forum by referring to other people as thick as dried **** and cretins.

AARRRGH

Duckjob wrote: »

I have a certain amount of sympathy for those that got caught in the height of the madness and now find themselves in bother due to unemployment etc.
But today, with nearly 2yrs since the start of the downturn? I mean c'mon.

Anyone who still trots out the same old crap about rent being dead money and paying someone elses mortgage, without bothering to spend the 5 minutes with pen and paper doing the sums on that would blow those cliches out of the water, is just thick as dried sh*t tbh.

The annoying thing is many of those cretins will be keep pushing until they find someone willing to lend to them at any cost. Then they'll be the media sob stories of the next few years looking for bailouts for their stupidity.

Spot on.

I thought it was a good programme, and was glad to see they didn't have an EA on talking absolute bollox.

AARRRGH

deadinterest wrote: »

personal responsibility is overrated, as is financial literacy.

I disagree they're overrated, but I think we're being naive by expecting people to understand or have personal responsibility. The reality is most people are a bit thick and are basically children in adults bodies. The only solution therefore is heavy regulation, for example, people earning poor wages in unsecure jobs should not get a mortgage, or at least, should only get a tiny mortgage.

The world has gone too soft. We need to remove the culture of entitlement.

deadinterest

AARRRGH wrote: »

I disagree they're overrated, but I think we're being naive by expecting people to understand or have personal responsibility. The reality is most people are a bit thick and are basically children in adults bodies. The only solution therefore is heavy regulation, for example, people earning poor wages in unsecure jobs should not get a mortgage, or at least, should only get a tiny mortgage.

The world has gone too soft. We need to remove the culture of entitlement.

Doesn't bode well for a knowledge economy does it?

waffleman

AARRRGH wrote: »

I disagree they're overrated, but I think we're being naive by expecting people to understand or have personal responsibility. The reality is most people are a bit thick and are basically children in adults bodies. The only solution therefore is heavy regulation, for example, people earning poor wages in unsecure jobs should not get a mortgage, or at least, should only get a tiny mortgage.

The world has gone too soft. We need to remove the culture of entitlement.

I agree with this - I wish it weren't true but it is

miec

For years we (meaning Irish people in general, with a few exceptions) held as conventional wisdom that property prices would continue to rise. Then, when it became obvious that there was some kind of upper limit, the "soft landing" was invented. We now now that it wasn't very soft.

Anyone who believed that prices would continue to rise continously were naive I'm sorry to say. I saw the same thing happen in the UK during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the exact same stuff happened, house prices went through the roof, people went crazy buying at any price, interest rates went up to 15% along with a collapse in the stock market, confidence plummetted and house prices dropped rapidly, massive bankrupties, reposessions etc. We are experiencing the same here.

Whilst is is heartbreaking to lose a home I do think personal responsibility needs to be accounted for as well. If you only earned X amount but wanted to buy a house that was the guts of half a million and the financial guys cooked the books for you, you left yourself in a very vulnerable position. I don't know if people take house buying that seriously but it is a really serious business and not to be taken lightly and I think it was made all too easy during the boom years.

waffleman

deadinterest wrote: »

rent is not dead money
new regulator
people grow extra brain cells and elect representatives who are competent (also stops idiotic protest votes at referendums)
read a five year olds math books, preferably learn to use excel and see how much interest costs

new regulator is a good start if they actually regulate - the rest is sound in theory but people will get fooled again when property starts to pick up. A new generation of lambs to the slaughter (and by proxy the rest of us). Force the lenders do their homework on people and this craziness won't happen again.

jmayo

waffleman wrote: »

Ok I agree with you but as long as people can borrow ridiculous amounts of money they will - I know of people who would still take a 100% mortgage now if they could. Certain people won't change unless they are forced to. Our banks will lend like cowboys until they are forced to take some responsibilty.

They are not held to account enough at present. I don't want to spend the rest of my life paying for banks lending like maniacs and people joining in because they feel they have to - I say make the banks more accountable for home loans approved STARTING TODAY - what's your alternative? another NAMA in 30 years?

Oh no not another NAMA, besides we will still be paying for this one in 30 years times anyway.

Anglo should have been left go to put wind up others and not have lumbered the Irish taxpayer with anything upto 10 billion in recapitalisation and maybe 30 odd billion in toxic NAMA bound loans.
AIB, BOI should have had a cull of top management, boucher should have been fired for increasing the lending and not bloody promoted.
Boards should have had new faces and all top executives should have been foreign.
Pay the new ones above the 500,000 where necessary, but get out the incestous inbreds.
IL&P should have new board, new executives for the sh** they pulled with Anglo.

Then the top tier of regulators should all be fired and the boards with them.
No payouts, just fired for incompetence and economic treason to the Irish state.
Bring in new non Irish staff, allow no fancy lunches and dinners with bankers.
Have none of this sh**e where the governor is ex Dept of Finance and is on stopover on way to moving to bank board.
Hire staff form the likes of Finland or Sweden where they have had banking messes that they sorted out.

Bring in whistleblower charter so that the likes of McErlean is not just hung out to dry in the future, as he was both by his bank and the former central banker and IFSRA cheif Liam O'Reilly. (do not forget his contribution to our banking mess).

Bring in rules for banks about capital versus lending.
Spain managed it and even though they had huge construction bubbles look how good their banks are in comparison to us.

Simarly only a proportion of their overall lending should be allowed go towards construction related development i.e. force them to lend to productive enterprises and avoid the sh**e that Anglo are in.
Let non Irish registered banks lend to developers.

But all the rules need to be policied and people need to go to jail for things like insider trading, breaches in company law and misleading the markets as happened with Anglo.

Allow no mortgage loans above 80%.
Sorry but if you can't save for a house then how are you going to pay for a mortgage.
Bring in tighter rental legislation so that renters, and indeed landlords, are protected and there isn't an onus on people to want to buy to ensure safety of tenure for their families.

deadinterest

jmayo wrote: »

Oh no not another NAMA, besides we will still be paying for this one in 30 years times anyway.

Anglo should have been left go to put wind up others and not have lumbered the Irish taxpayer with anything upto 10 billion in recapitalisation and maybe 30 odd billion in toxic NAMA bound loans.
AIB, BOI should have had a cull of top management, boucher should have been fired for increasing the lending and not bloody promoted.
Boards should have had new faces and all top executives should have been foreign.
Pay the new ones above the 500,000 where necessary, but get out the incestous inbreds.
IL&P should have new board, new executives for the sh** they pulled with Anglo.

Then the top tier of regulators should all be fired and the boards with them.
No payouts, just fired for incompetence and economic treason to the Irish state.
Bring in new non Irish staff, allow no fancy lunches and dinners with bankers.
Have none of this sh**e where the governor is ex Dept of Finance and is on stopover on way to moving to bank board.
Hire staff form the likes of Finland or Sweden where they have had banking messes that they sorted out.

Bring in whistleblower charter so that the likes of McErlean is not just hung out to dry in the future, as he was both by his bank and the former central banker and IFSRA cheif Liam O'Reilly. (do not forget his contribution to our banking mess).

Bring in rules for banks about capital versus lending.
Spain managed it and even though they had huge construction bubbles look how good their banks are in comparison to us.

Simarly only a proportion of their overall lending should be allowed go towards construction related development i.e. force them to lend to productive enterprises and avoid the sh**e that Anglo are in.
Let non Irish registered banks lend to developers.

But all the rules need to be policied and people need to go to jail for things like insider trading, breaches in company law and misleading the markets as happened with Anglo.

Allow no mortgage loans above 80%.
Sorry but if you can't save for a house then how are you going to pay for a mortgage.
Bring in tighter rental legislation so that renters, and indeed landlords, are protected and there isn't an onus on people to want to buy to ensure safety of tenure for their families.

All badly needed but would never happen in a country where Healy Rae the younger is getting groomed for his dead cert seat.

hinault

jmayo wrote: »

Read what exactly sand says in the post.



What sand is syaing is that people should be allowed walk away from their debts and dump them on someone else.
This is making the old Irish assumption about there being some mythical system that is in charge that you can screw over.
Except the f***ing system is you, me, every other citizen and even sand. :mad:

Sand and you appear to think this would be good lesson to the banks and make them more conservative in their lending in future.
Except you are forgetting one BIG thing.
The worse the banks debts, the more toxic assets they hold as securties on defaulted loans, the worse their balance sheet.

This would be fine if we don't care if a financial institution goes under, but we are tied through bank guarantee of them all, ownership of one and recapitalisation of the big two.

We have to recapitalise the big two further meaning we will have affectively nationalised them and thus more we the taxpayers have to cough up if they have even bigger debts.



It is all well and good changing lending practices going forward, but if we absolve a huge chunk of our population of their debts, dump those bad debts on our financial institutions we are screwing the entire country.
I am sorry but I am not willing to pay more taxes, face more cuts so that somebody who overspent and signed up for massive loans can now walk away.

If that comes to pass why shouldn't I, or one of my family, go out and get big loan and then default on them.

Certain sections of the population shoudl never have gotten massive loans in the first place.
But there is another side to this, the people themselves should have known that they were taking on too big a risk.
People have to take responsibility for their actions.

That was what cuased the massive subprime fiasco in the states where ninjas were getting loans to buy homes, all pushed by the administration's desire to increase ownership.
The loans were all packaged up and thanks to the lax regulation, poor ratings agencies (the same ones that downgrade Ireland every few months) and clever thinking of financial whizzkids, the loans were passed off as gilt edge investable products.

Are you being deliberately mendacious?

Sand and others have suggested revising the law to ensure that the mortgage holder can, in future, hand bank the keys if they get in to trouble with their mortgage.

If this stipulation was enacted, going forward, it would might make the banks do their job and not extend credit to those who might not be able to repay the money borrowed.

Aidric

ei.sdraob wrote: »

"Rent is dead money"

:eek: :P :rolleyes:

I turned it off at this point. That couple were making me squirm with their complete lack of awareness.

deadinterest

hinault wrote: »

Are you being deliberately mendacious?

Sand and others have suggested revising the law to ensure that the mortgage holder can, in future, hand bank the keys if they get in to trouble with their mortgage.

If this stipulation was enacted, going forward, it would might make the banks do their job and not extend credit to those who might not be able to repay the money borrowed.

It's one thing to review bankruptcy laws to make banks more prudent but removing peoples responsibility is one thing. I think the UK has a system somewhere bewteen ireland and the US.