Idea for the People?

FreudianSlippers

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

It is still a bit of an anomally though. If a director dies leaving only a spouse, these put and call agreements can force her to sell the shares to the surviving director despite the fact that she was never party to the agreement and may wish to keep the shareholding. I presume that the articles of association would have little to do with this?

It's usually that this agreement is in place in the articles of association - that is that the shares would never be left to the spouse, the intention would always be that the estate would sell these shares to the other shareholders to benefit the spouse.
I'm pretty sure there are other scenarios for this too, (joint shareholders etc) just cannot think of them off the top of my head.

RATM

OisinT wrote: »

The banks are not being bailed out. The government is purchasing the derivatives portfolio of each of the major banks and funding recapitalisation through purchase of equity in the banks. This means that NAMA is a shareholder in the banks and the government (read:we) are shareholders in NAMA and enjoy the rights that go along with that.

PS: this scheme was previously successful in the 90s in Sweden

You've been sold some FF propaganda there buddy. There was indeed a good bank-bad bank scheme in Sweden that was largely successful in the 1990's. However NAMA is not nor will it ever be a replica of that system. For one Sweden did deals with the bond-holders- they were told they'd have to take either some of the hit or sit back and take all of it. We didn't and we're still subsidising their dodgy gambles right now.

Secondly Sweden had their bad bank open and closed all in the space of 18 months, as per their plan. Our plan is more, shall we say, open ended with a decade being the minimum time scale being mooted by the parties. You just know well that 10 years is going to turn into 15 or even 20 the way things are going.

So no, we don't have a scheme like the successful Swedish one, the very idea that we ever did was more FF lies to persuade the masses that NAMA was a good idea.

FreudianSlippers

RATM wrote: »

You've been sold some FF propaganda there buddy. There was indeed a good bank-bad bank scheme in Sweden that was largely successful in the 1990's. However NAMA is not nor will it ever be a replica of that system. For one Sweden did deals with the bond-holders- they were told they'd have to take either some of the hit or sit back and take all of it. We didn't and we're still subsidising their dodgy gambles right now.

Secondly Sweden had their bad bank open and closed all in the space of 18 months, as per their plan. Our plan is more, shall we say, open ended with a decade being the minimum time scale being mooted by the parties. You just know well that 10 years is going to turn into 15 or even 20 the way things are going.

So no, we don't have a scheme like the successful Swedish one, the very idea that we ever did was more FF lies to persuade the masses that NAMA was a good idea.

Don't know anything about FF propaganda or otherwise. Not a member or a believer in any of the parties.

This system works and unfortunately the majority of the population are woefully unaware of what it means. Most people think we're just giving money to the banks for nothing.

UrbanSea

OisinT wrote: »

I'm just teasing. My point was really that why is it so ridiculous that property costs different amounts in different areas?
Clearly supply and demand is weighted differently in Dublin than in different areas of the country. Rental income has higher potential thus property investment at higher value is also more abundant.

But at the same time people should have looked around and realised the price differences in areas were becoming ridiculous,after all,it wasn't just Dublin that was growing,but prices reflected that.
I bet most of those rental houses are now recieving less rent than the mortgage is due to competition from other rental properties now. Puts things into perspective as to how stupid people were.