Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Defaulting on a Buy To Let mortgage. What would happen?

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    How does this patent nonsense relieve your friend of his responsibility? He heard these money salesman saying property was going to rise in value, and rushed to cash in. Your friend's greed was the problem.

    What about the greed of the salesmen? Or the stupidity (greed in the sense that re-election was a motivation) of the State?


    I don't see why we should pay for it

    You need to ask the State why they decided to take on private sector gambling debt for that.


  • Options
    #33
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    D3PO wrote: »
    bank made a decision on your friend based on 70 grand he declared as savings that were borrowed as a home imprevement loan. its not reckless to lend based on fraudulent information.

    How do you suppose he managed to disguise a 70 grand loan from a bank, from a bank?


  • Options
    #34
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    D3PO wrote: »
    no it isnt. We dont do non recourse loans. If we did then it would be the banks responsibility but thats not the case.

    As before.
    The issue isn't legal responsibility, it's moral responsibility. When it comes to legal responsibility you engage in a game and you attempt to win it by whatever legal means are open to you.

    non-recourse loans is a legal device. Not a moral one.


  • Options
    #35
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It's also the banks responsibility to lend responsibly and the dog in the street is agreed that they didn't lend so.
    How was their lending to your friend irresponsible? Should they have anticipated that he would commit fraud in his loan application, and that he would try to defraud them again by not paying? :confused:
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Christ didn't have a lot to say on matters financial but one of the things he did say was that you should pay Caesar what Caesar is due. This debate concerns precisely what Caesar is due.
    That's a beautiful example of hypocrisy. It's amazing how flexible the religious mind can be when they need to find a loophole. A child can see how immoral this behaviour is.

    And of course the whole reason why debt forgiveness for those in dire straits cannot be introduced is because of crooks like your friend who would try to cash in too.

    Disgrace.


  • Options
    #36
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    How do you suppose he managed to disguise a 70 grand loan from a bank, from a bank?

    Fraud? Did he declare it, as he was required to?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    As before.



    non-recourse loans is a legal device. Not a moral one.


    and legal trumps moral every time so whats your point ?


  • Options
    #38
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    How was their lending to your friend irresponsible? Should they have anticipated that he would commit fraud in his loan application, and that he would try to defraud them again by not paying? :confused:

    They should have carried out basic checks on his financial state - unless you suppose that non-bubble-mentality banks are in the practice of lending vast sums of money based on a persons say so. The dog in the street now knows that the banks didn't want to know because that would interfere with more lending which would interfere with bank bonuses

    Are you not aware that the banks were central in inflating the bubble?


    That's a beautiful example of hypocrisy. It's amazing how flexible the religious mind can be when they need to find a loophole. A child can see how immoral this behaviour is.

    Christ was flexible because the circumstances are flexible. I honestly have no moral issue with it and I'm not at all going to benefit. Quite the contrary in fact.

    And of course the whole reason why debt forgiveness for those in dire straits cannot be introduced is because of crooks like your friend who would try to cash in too.

    I take it you don't/won't see the banks or the State as being in anyway culpable. Since that doesn't look like it's going to change (from either of our perspectives) we might as well agree to differ.


  • Options
    #39
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    D3PO wrote: »
    and legal trumps moral every time so whats your point ?

    My point was to open a thread seeking advice (of a legal nature). I've no issue defending the moral elements involved but it's an aside


  • Options
    #40
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Fraud? Did he declare it, as he was required to?

    Sure he was required. As were the bank required to confirm his status. Failure on both their parts constitutes irresponsibility. Borrowing and lending.


  • Options
    #41
    dearg lady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭dearg lady


    I would tend to agree the bank has some responsibity for poor selling, but I doubt their responsibility would account for twice whats your friends is!

    Tbh, I'm not really seeing what the issue is here, your friend can afford the mortgage yes? Why on earth would he stop paying it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    They should have carried out basic checks on his financial state - unless you suppose that non-bubble-mentality banks are in the practice of lending vast sums of money based on a persons say so.

    They did carry out basic checks. They asked him - under pain of the fraud legislation - to declare his financial state. Your friend lied. He should be punished.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Are you not aware that the banks were central in inflating the bubble?
    I'm well aware of the role the banks played, thanks very much. I've been following this story for a decade. It does not excuse your friend for committing fraud and ripping off his fellow citizens. Do you excuse insurance fraud too?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Christ was flexible because the circumstances are flexible. I honestly have no moral issue with it and I'm not at all going to benefit. Quite the contrary in fact.
    Interesting - have I discovered another area where secular morality holds people to a higher standard than Christian morality? I may take this up on the Christianity forum to see what other Christians think.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I take it you don't/won't see the banks or the State as being in anyway culpable. Since that doesn't look like it's going to change (from either of our perspectives) we might as well agree to differ.
    Of course the state and the banks are culpable. The banks' owners have been punished (their shares were wiped out). The state in the shape of Fianna Failure and the Greens who allowed this to happen have been wiped out electorally.

    So it seems that you want everyone punished except your fraudulent friend. :confused:
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Sure he was required. As were the bank required to confirm his status. Failure on both their parts constitutes irresponsibility. Borrowing and lending.
    The bank did what was required of it (unless you want a world where a detective has to be hired to investigate every loan applicant). Your fraudulent friend did not and is criminally liable.


  • Options
    #43
    blah
    Registered Users Posts: 938 ✭✭✭blah


    I understand what your mate is going through, sure I have a friend myself who borrowed €25k supposedly for a car but then spent it all on online poker. He had a system, a plan and he was sure that he was going to get rich. But he didn't, now the bank want their money back and he hasn't got it. Why should he have to pay? Shouldn't the bank share the risk?


  • Options
    #44
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    dearg lady wrote: »
    I would tend to agree the bank has some responsibity for poor selling, but I doubt their responsibility would account for twice whats your friends is!

    I was just chatting to him now to clarify details. Turns out he went to the bank and when they asked how much he was bringing to the party he said "nothing - I've not got a penny" (he'd laid a 5 grand deposit down with the developer at that stage)

    The woman in the bank balked a bit and said the max they could offer was 191k and that he'd have to find the rest elsewhere whereupon he took out a top up mortgage on his house (after being given the name of "the right person to talk to" in his own mortgage company by his accountant). He gets the top up mortgage, heads back to the primary lender and they okay the 191K.

    Poor selling indeed!


    I'm suggesting that both the bank and the State are co-responsible and that both should shoulder some of the burden. That the State has taken over the bank merely transfers the banks burden to the State. 100K shared between State and Bank and 70K taken by my mate seems fair enough.

    How would you slice up the pie?


    Tbh, I'm not really seeing what the issue is here, your friend can afford the mortgage yes? Why on earth would he stop paying it?

    Afford is a relative term.

    My take would be that 3 parties got involved in a remarkable gamble. That gamble has failed and the issue arises as to whether all parties should pay.


  • Options
    #45
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    blah wrote: »
    I understand what your mate is going through, sure I have a friend myself who borrowed €25k supposedly for a car but then spent it all on online poker. He had a system, a plan and he was sure that he was going to get rich. But he didn't, now the bank want their money back and he hasn't got it. Why should he have to pay? Shouldn't the bank share the risk?

    Doesn't sound like they lent recklessly here. Did they examine his financial circumstances before lending?


  • Options
    #46
    dearg lady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭dearg lady


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I was just chatting to him now to clarify details. Turns out he went to the bank and when they asked how much he was bringing to the party he said "nothing - I've not got a penny" (he'd laid a 5 grand deposit down with the developer at that stage)

    The woman in the bank balked a bit and said the max they could offer was 191k and that he'd have to find the rest elsewhere whereupon he took out a top up mortgage on his house (after being given the name of "the right person to talk to" in his own mortgage company by his accountant). He gets the top up mortgage, heads back to the primary lender and they okay the 191K.

    Poor selling indeed!


    I'm suggesting that both the bank and the State are co-responsible and that both should shoulder some of the burden. That the State has taken over the bank merely transfers the banks burden to the State. 100K shared between State and Bank and 70K taken by my mate seems fair enough.

    How would you slice up the pie?

    I honestly don't know, but IF a form of debt forgiveness were to be introduced, I would suggest it only be applicable on PPR's. To allow something like this on buy to lets would be madness IMO.


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Afford is a relative term.

    Well either he can or he can't, and you've already said MABS won't help as he can afford it. Plenty of people have had to cut back on spending and just about make ends meet.


  • Options
    #47
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Guys- quit on the personal abuse and/or name calling please.
    I have a high tolerance level, but there are several posts in this thread where people are borderline on getting a temporary posting ban......


  • Options
    #48
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I was just chatting to him now to clarify details. Turns out he went to the bank and when they asked how much he was bringing to the party he said "nothing - I've not got a penny" (he'd laid a 5 grand deposit down with the developer at that stage)

    The woman in the bank balked a bit and said the max they could offer was 191k and that he'd have to find the rest elsewhere whereupon he took out a top up mortgage on his house (after being given the name of "the right person to talk to" in his own mortgage company by his accountant). He gets the top up mortgage, heads back to the primary lender and they okay the 191K.

    Poor selling indeed!
    Where is the poor selling? :confused:

    They lent the money to someone who could pay it back. That is their job!


  • Options
    #49
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    They did carry out basic checks. They asked him - under pain of the fraud legislation - to declare his financial state. Your friend lied. He should be punished.

    That's not the kind of basic check that was carried out before the bubble. And it's not the kind of basic check that's carried out today.

    The suggestion is that greed was the motivation behind both the banks ceasing to carry out basic checks on their customers and the State carrying out basic checks on the Banks.


    I'm well aware of the role the banks played, thanks very much. I've been following this story for a decade. It does not excuse your friend for committing fraud

    My friend will reap the rewards of his folly. My suggestion is that the Banks and the State reap the rewards of their folly. You seem aware of their role but don't seem to think the Banks should pay for their folly. I don't know what your opinion is on the role of the State at the time. And whether the State should shoulder some burden for it's folly.

    and ripping off his fellow citizens.

    This is about the Banks responsibilty. That the Banks have been taken over by the State is neither here nor there.

    Do you excuse insurance fraud too?

    If the insurance company is culpable in the losses they suffer then I would excuse the fraudster to a degree.


    Interesting - have I discovered another area where secular morality holds people to a higher standard than Christian morality? I may take this up on the Christianity forum to see what other Christians think.

    By all means. Whilst you're at it, you might tell us which standard you are using to decide you* morality higher than the Christian one.

    * I say 'your' instead of secular since there is no such thing as a unified secular morality.


    Of course the state and the banks are culpable. The banks' owners have been punished (their shares were wiped out). The state in the shape of Fianna Failure and the Greens who allowed this to happen have been wiped out electorally.

    And my mate has has the stress of this thing hanging around his neck and has thrown money at interest-only since buying the place. That's the past.

    A default deals only with the current state of affairs - not with that which has already gone under the bridge.





    So it seems that you want everyone punished except your fraudulent friend. :confused:

    70k out of a total of 160k doesn't sound like getting off scott free to me


    The bank did what was required of it (unless you want a world where a detective has to be hired to investigate every loan applicant). Your fraudulent friend did not and is criminally liable.

    I think you'll find that banks didn't (and won't be) giving out money to folk merely on that persons say so. If they did, there'd be no such thing as loansharks.


  • Options
    #50
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    dearg lady wrote: »
    I honestly don't know..

    Three parties to a 160k loss. The one takes 70k the other two share 90K. Sounds kind of fair.

    but IF a form of debt forgiveness were to be introduced, I would suggest it only be applicable on PPR's. To allow something like this on buy to lets would be madness IMO.

    Financial madness perhaps. But moral madness?

    Three parties engage in a gamble. The gamble doesn't pay off (because my friend decides he's not shouldering the losses on his own). He makes it the business of the other two gamblers in other words.

    Well either he can or he can't, and you've already said MABS won't help as he can afford it. Plenty of people have had to cut back on spending and just about make ends meet.

    I'd be coming at this from a moral rather than practical perspective in recent posts. Morally, I see no reason not to include the other gamblers in the losses incurred and see no moral reason no to attempt to use legal means to ensure those other gamblers are included.

    Whether or not he can afford to pay isn't the issue. It's whether the other gamblers should be included or not.


  • Options
    #51
    Oral Surgeon
    Registered Users Posts: 3,240 ✭✭✭Oral Surgeon


    Is this thread about yourself as you seem to know a lot about your friends financial situation....? None of my friends know anything about my banking arrangements let alone would be fighting my corner for 4 pages of posts...!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Where is the poor selling? :confused:

    They lent the money to someone who could pay it back. That is their job!

    The dog in the street accepts lending practices were shoddy during the bubble. If you don't see this example of shoddy practice then I'm not going to try to convince you further.


  • Options
    #53
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Three parties engage in a gamble. The gamble doesn't pay off (because my friend decides he's not shouldering the losses on his own). He makes it the business of the other two gamblers in other words.
    Total nonsense. The state is 'a gambler' now? Your friend gambled and lost. He needs to keep paying what he owes and what he can afford, and hope the bank doesn't come after him for his fraud.


  • Options
    #54
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The dog in the street accepts lending practices were shoddy during the bubble. If you don't see this example of shoddy practice then I'm not going to try to convince you further.
    You can't convince me or anyone else because there is nothing wrong with lending money to people that they can pay back.


  • Options
    #55
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Oral Surgeon wrote: »
    Is this thread about yourself as you seem to know a lot about your friends financial situation....?

    Thankfully, it's not about my own situation. There isn't a lot to know that couldn't take place in a 5 minute discussion yesterday and a brief phone conversation this morning)

    None of my friends know anything about my banking arrangements let alone would be fighting my corner for 4 pages of posts...!!

    I know the basic financial arrangement of a few of my close friends - usually those who are a bit up to their necks in it due to the property crash.

    And I like debating issues. Especially moral ones. :)


  • Options
    #56
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Especially moral ones.
    And immoral ones, it seems. :(


  • Options
    #57
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Total nonsense. The state is 'a gambler' now?

    Of course it is! The State permitted the inflation of a gargantuan property bubble. Indeed, it aided and abetted it. It did this in order to achieve the gains that were possible (on a State level: improved health services, infrastructure, etc and on a personal one, re-election) and in so doing took a risk that the potential downsides wouldn't happen.


    Your friend gambled and lost. He needs to keep paying what he owes and what he can afford, and hope the bank doesn't come after him for his fraud.


    Lending money is a risky business - banks regularily have to write off loans as bad debts. And we can see above that the State involved itself in a risky business too.

    Risky business is another name for gambling. Bank and State did so.


  • Options
    #58
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Of course it is! The State permitted the inflation of a gargantuan property bubble. Indeed, it aided and abetted it. It did this in order to achieve the gains that were possible (on a State level: improved health services, infrastructure, etc and on a personal one, re-election) and in so doing took a risk that the potential downsides wouldn't happen.






    Lending money is a risky business - banks regularily have to write off loans as bad debts. And we can see above that the State involved itself in a risky business too.

    Risky business is another name for gambling. Bank and State did so.

    But they lent to someone who can pay it back. Your friend just doesn't want to.


  • Options
    #59
    dearg lady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭dearg lady


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Three parties engage in a gamble. The gamble doesn't pay off (because my friend decides he's not shouldering the losses on his own). He makes it the business of the other two gamblers in other words.

    The only 'gamble' I can see from the banks point of view is whether or not the individual they loan money to can repay it, and evidently he can.

    I can't see where the State has gambled at all. t was a private transaction between your friend and 2 banks

    The risk for your friend is that he may lose money on his investment. He has. suck it up. You keep bringing up the morality of the situation, which is just bizarre, the only immorality would be if your friend allowed others to pay for his mistake.


  • Options
    #60
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Of course it is! The State permitted the inflation of a gargantuan property bubble. Indeed, it aided and abetted it. It did this in order to achieve the gains that were possible (on a State level: improved health services, infrastructure, etc and on a personal one, re-election) and in so doing took a risk that the potential downsides wouldn't happen.
    The state was mismanaged. The same as your pal mismanaged his personal finances, and indulged in fraud. Nobody is going to let the state off the hook - so why should your friend be given a pass, and his problems passed on to the rest of us? Every cent that your friend dodges out of repaying is a cent that could be spent on our children, the sick and the old. Maybe you think that is moral, but I don't.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Lending money is a risky business - banks regularily have to write off loans as bad debts. And we can see above that the State involved itself in a risky business too.

    Risky business is another name for gambling. Bank and State did so.
    Opening a restaurant is a risky business. Crossing the street is a risky business. Insuring cars is a risky business. Having children is a risky business.

    Trying to conflate doing ordinary business with outright gambling (e.g. fraudulently gambling on property prices) is not going to fool other people, even if you have fooled yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    Im done with this thread your moral compass is so far off Antiskeptic that If I didnt know any better Id say you were trolling.

    your friend was greedy and hes getting whats due to him. I for one an delighted that his greed is burning a hole in his pocket.

    you seem to think its the government and banks who fueled the boom. Whilst they played their part it was the greed of your friend and other borrow to let people that were the main cause. And frankly the more they lose the better In my mind.


Advertisement