Irish Mortgage Corp. "a deal with the devil".

FetchTheGin

I don't think I will ever want to get a mortgage unless the prices go way down and I have a guaranteed career.

Monty Burnz

noxqs wrote: »

And where is the financial regulator in this? Where is the laws against sub-prime lending and where is the Gardai? And who is the people who bought these loans - I'm sure its the usual bailed out suspects.

The financial regulator was allowed to retire with full benefits by Fianna Failure, and I believe they even gave him a lump sum of 600k plus - all for failing in his job in absolutely epic fashion, and causing untold misery for the Irish people.

Here he is, just before the fantasy of the bubble came crashing down:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuHRulXfzGA

Monty Burnz

lastlaugh wrote: »

I was watching the Frontline last night and there was a guy on it complaining that he got a 340K mortgage on an apartment that was now worth, he reckoned, about 90K.

WTF was he doing getting a mortgage for that much for an apartment in the first place?

While I sympathise with people who are in negative equatity who want to start a family and are trapped in some pokey two bedroom box, I find it hard to feel sorry for people who bought places as a status symbol.

Presumably he reckoned he was getting a good deal at 340k when he signed the papers. He was wrong. I don't see why that is our problem.

I thought I was getting a good deal when I bought shares in Parthus technologies in 2001. They lost a lot of value. Where's my NAMA?

lastlaugh

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Presumably he reckoned he was getting a good deal at 340k when he signed the papers. He was wrong. I don't see why that is our problem.

That's the problem though, the monthly repayments on that must be over 1,500 a month! That's crazy altogether.

People lost the run of themselves and sense went/and is still going out the window.

There is a girl in work who drives a big '09 VW Passat, must cost her a lot in monthly repayments over a few years. The same girl is saying she is being threatened to have her Gas and Electricity cut off because she can't pay the bills, and she says it as if it isn't her fault?
Why the F*ck do you have such an expensive car so?

I remember when the 'Boom' was in full swing, a plonker in work was bragging about how much of a mortgage he had got approval for, as if it was he felt he was 'more important' because he could 'afford' something astronomically expensive.

I have no sympathy for people who spend completely wrecklessly.

foxyboxer

Monty Burnz wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuHRulXfzGA

Michael Lewis summed it up perfectly in Vanity Fair.

Here he was, on their televisions, insisting that the Irish banks were “resilient” and “more than adequately capitalized” … when everyone in Ireland could see, in the vacant skyscrapers and empty housing developments around them, evidence of bank loans that were not merely bad but insane. “What happened was that everyone in Ireland had the idea that somewhere in Ireland there was a little wise old man who was in charge of the money, and this was the first time they’d ever seen this little man,” says [Colm] McCarthy. “And then they saw him and said, Who the **** was that??? Is that the ****ing guy who is in charge of the money??? That’s when everyone panicked.” ….

The Left Hand Of God

I think anyone who was rang up by a bank and talked into taking a mortgage out should be given some sort of debt forgiveness.

Anyone who went looking for a mortgage of their own free will and sat their ass down in front of someone and asked for one...well they can go whistle tbh.

Personal culpability and all that.

And I don't give a sh1te what they whistle either. Though I recommend the Lonesome Boat man as a good whistling toon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8rULrp_J5E

tonsiltickler

The boom was disgustingly irresponsible. You had mortgage brokers who had to sell sell sell. They didn't do any fact finding for the most part. You wanted a mortgage, you got it simple as. It wasn't a bank manager looking carefully over your savings, earnings and other investments, it was a sleazy salesperson trying to get dat comish.

The brokers didn't come up with the money for the loans, the banks did. Package a hundred mortgages together and sell the debt as a security which were seen as rock solid investment opportunities.

Saying that, anyone who is on social welfare and thinks they can afford a 300 grand mortgage is off their t*ts. Anyone who got one of these loans is definitely responsible to a slightly lesser degree, but still....

My_left_leg

Jail those scummy brokers!

dj jarvis

Wertz wrote: »

...and yet in some other countries, the barman can indeed be held responsible for someone that has drank too much, caused an accident whilst drink driving or similar.
Part fo the problem with how mortgages are/were doled out (no pun intended) in this country is due to a commission based system and the apparent fact that the lender isn't as concerned about the actual value of the asset they're loaning the money for...

If I was to loan you the money to buy a car, I'd damn well want to know that that car was actually worth the money I was loaing you and wasn't some tarted up lemon, just in case I had to take it off you as part of the debt if your loan went bad...but even more than that I'd want to be sure that you could actually pay me back the price of that car plus the agreed interest.
The thing is that these broekers didn't care because it's not their money they're loaning...they get their % no matter what...and if the sh*t hits the fan the company goes under or gets bailed out.

How the hell was someone reselling fruit and veg and his wife on the scratcher going to pay back a 300K loan???
Takes two to tango here and I have to blame the people who leant it as much as the people who borrowed it.

yea but only one person here lost their life because of this stupidity

and it was not the broker or the regulator

this is bull**** blaming the borrower - people are stupid
couple that with money and its a recipe for disaster

that is why we were supposed to have a regulator and laws to protect people from themselves
in this case and many many others the protectors turned their backs while the money vultures prayed on this ill informed and ill equipped couple

people have short memory's - don't forget the near universal feeling that the good times were not going to end - they probably really thought they were going to be able to pay this back


all well and good sitting on your pc having no sympathy for these people ,
but they made a bad financial decision - guided by " professionals " and one of them ended up dead - you people make me sick

lets hope you all never make a bad decision that cost's you your life

fontanalis

My_left_leg wrote: »

we are in the very fortunate position of being totally debt-free. we bought a shoebox apartment in Dublin in te late '90s and sold it in 2006. we now have a large detached 5 bedroom house. no mortgage.

we were tempted to "go again" and borrow big, but thankfully we decided not to, and instead concentrated instead on clearing our debts. some people were not as astute/lucky as us and have gotten themselves into all sorts of problems.

a very good friend of mine worked as an auctioneer/mortgage broker in Dublin, so i have a good insight as to how these guys operate. from what he tells me to say some of the deals are murky would be an understatement.:)

Out of intrest did he say if he or any of his colleagues invested in property? I'd say some aucioneers must have done very well if they didn;t blow their cash on property.

lastlaugh

dj jarvis wrote: »

yea but only one person here lost their life because of this stupidity

and it was not the broker or the regulator

this is bull**** blaming the borrower - people are stupid
couple that with money and its a recipe for disaster

that is why we were supposed to have a regulator and laws to protect people from themselves
in this case and many many others the protectors turned their backs while the money vultures prayed on this ill informed and ill equipped couple

people have short memory's - don't forget the near universal feeling that the good times were not going to end - they probably really thought they were going to be able to pay this back


all well and good sitting on your pc having no sympathy for these people ,
but they made a bad financial decision - guided by " professionals " and one of them ended up dead - you people make me sick

lets hope you all never make a bad decision that cost's you your life

Ah, God love the poor stupid people. That's a great argument.

I heard the interview with the woman on Drivetime earlier, I can't understand why her and her late husband went ahead and agreed to borrow 350K @ 1.8K a month over 34yrs. Especially since she was on welfare and the husband was on "the sick". I'm not surprised the man killed himself considering the pressure he must have been under to meet the repayments.

Even more preposterous though is why they were approved to get the money. Someone needs to be strung up by the balls for that alright.

Wertz

dj jarvis wrote: »

yea but only one person here lost their life because of this stupidity

and it was not the broker or the regulator

Guy took his own life same way as he took on the mortgage...both were his choice. No-one put a gun to his head in either instance.
Harsh but true.

dj jarvis wrote: »

this is bull**** blaming the borrower - people are stupid
couple that with money and its a recipe for disaster


that is why we were supposed to have a regulator and laws to protect people from themselves
in this case and many many others the protectors turned their backs while the money vultures prayed on this ill informed and ill equipped couple

Like it or not they have to shoulder some of the blame...yes the regulator didn't do his job properly, more than just him to blame here...it goes right up and down the chain.

You can only protect people from themselves so much...we can't wrap the population in a cottonball of regulation against every slight possibility.

dj jarvis wrote: »

people have short memory's - don't forget the near universal feeling that the good times were not going to end - they probably really thought they were going to be able to pay this back

I personally don't recall that feeling... nothing lasts forever, especially low interest money...did any of them give thought to what was going to happen in the next 30 yrs? Looks like many of them didn;t worry about how it was going to go for the next 3 yrs...

dj jarvis wrote: »

all well and good sitting on your pc having no sympathy for these people ,
but they made a bad financial decision - guided by " professionals " and one of them ended up dead - you people make me sick

lets hope you all never make a bad decision that cost's you your life

Hang on a second...no-one's not having sympathy or whatever hysteria you're peddling...
In many cases borrowers are compeltely to blame...in some cases they share equal responsibility with the vultures that lent out the money.

To re-iterate, it takes two to tango...

Unfortunately we'll all at some point in our lives make a decision that directly or indirectly ends that life.

dj jarvis

lastlaugh wrote: »

Ah, God love the poor stupid people. That's a great argument.

I heard the interview with the woman on Drivetime earlier, I can't understand why her and her late husband went ahead and agreed to borrow 350K @ 1.8K a month over 34yrs. Especially since she was on welfare and the husband was on "the sick". I'm not surprised the man killed himself considering the pressure he must have been under to meet the repayments.

Even more preposterous though is why they were approved to get the money. Someone needs to be strung up by the balls for that alright.

listen - dont love the stupid people but you have to protect them from these feckin sharks - country is full of dopes - that is why we are supposed to have regulation - they were mental for borrowing that amount of money - truly mad !!!

BUT they should have never gotten near the cash full stop , so is it their fault ? i dont think so

idiots will ALWAYS try and borrow more than they can afford
can you really blame a idiot for being a idiot ?
in my view 99% of the blame lies with the broker - lender and regulator

easy to scoff at the borrowers stupidity - but they were stupid
what else would you expect them 2 do ?

dj jarvis

Wertz wrote: »

Guy took his own life same way as he took on the mortgage...both were his choice. No-one put a gun to his head in either instance.
Harsh but true.




that is why we were supposed to have a regulator and laws to protect people from themselves
in this case and many many others the protectors turned their backs while the money vultures prayed on this ill informed and ill equipped couple

Like it or not they have to shoulder some of the blame...yes the regulator didn't do his job properly, more than just him to blame here...it goes right up and down the chain.

You can only protect people from themselves so much...we can't rap the population in a cottonball of regulation against every slight possibility.



I personally don't recall that feeling... nothing lasts forever, especially low interest money...did any of them give thought to what was going to happen in the next 30 yrs? Looks like many of them didn;t worry about how it was going to go for the next 3 yrs...



Hang on a second...no-one's not having sympathy or whatever hysteria you're peddling...
In many cases borrowers are compeltely to blame...in some cases they share equal responsibility with the vultures that lent out the money.

To re-iterate, it takes two to tango...

Unfortunately we'll all at some point in our lives make a decision that directly or indirectly ends that life.[/QUOTE]

read my post i did say NEAR universal - well done you for being so far sighted in your affairs

so EVERY person that borrowed on the strength of the wage they were earning at the time is a idiot ?
so when should people take out loans ? when they are out of work ?
i bought a house at the height of the boom - based on my past and present earnings - that is how it works

how is it my bad decision making if the world economy falls on its arse ?

its gas to see how many financial wizards appear after the fact

people did hang - unfortunately it was not the lender or regulator instead it was some gob**** who should never been given the money in the first place

westendgirlie

Can someone explain what a sub prime lender is?

lastlaugh

dj jarvis wrote: »

[/B]
listen - dont love the stupid people but you have to protect them from these feckin sharks - country is full of dopes - that is why we are supposed to have regulation - they were mental for borrowing that amount of money - truly mad !!!

BUT they should have never gotten near the cash full stop , so is it their fault ? i dont think so

idiots will ALWAYS try and borrow more than they can afford
can you really blame a idiot for being a idiot ?
in my view 99% of the blame lies with the broker - lender and regulator

easy to scoff at the borrowers stupidity - but they were stupid
what else would you expect them 2 do ?

You are right. They never should have gotten the money, it's ridiculous that they did.

I suppose people will always chance their arm.

mickydoomsux

westendgirlie wrote: »

Can someone explain what a sub prime lender is?

They give loans to people who shouldn't be given loans because they can't afford them.

wild_cat

I heard the lady from the article on drive time this evening.

Her husband was on sick benefit and she was allowed to work 14 hours a week as part of what ever benefit she was on. She did this on their fruit stall each Sunday. At the time she was bringing in 200-300 euro a week from the stall. Over 35 years her repayments were 1800 a month...

They had a tonne of other loans with credit unions and other institutions and they went for the largest loan they could get 350,000 thousand... and rolled all the loans into one.

westendgirlie

mickydoomsux wrote: »

They give loans to people who shouldn't be given loans because they can't afford them.

So all mortgage providers are, in some respect, sub prime lenders ???

starbelgrade

westendgirlie wrote: »

So all mortgage providers are, in some respect, sub prime lenders ???

Good point!

Bullseye1

That is probably a fair assessment. Banks should take on some of the risk in all of this and therefore they should be taking a hit on these mortgages. They had the professional people giving out these 100 and 110% mortgages. They were giving out money to people who should never have gotten the money they were given.

Wertz

dj jarvis wrote: »

read my post i did say NEAR universal - well done you for being so far sighted in your affairs

Oh I wasn't far sighted, I was just single and low waged, hence renting my only option.
I was offered mortgage and I could have fiddled wage slips and borrowed a deposit, but renting still seemed like the way to go for me.

dj jarvis wrote: »

so EVERY person that borrowed on the strength of the wage they were earning at the time is a idiot ?
so when should people take out loans ? when they are out of work ?
i bought a house at the height of the boom - based on my past and present earnings - that is how it works

I never called anyone an idiot...people should take out loans they can afford to pay back for the lifetime of the loan and allowing for worst case scenarios over the term...
The whole mess we're in is partly a result of people borrowing and being loaned stupid amounts that drove up the cost of all housing and created an even greater demand (this is no one individual's fault here)

dj jarvis wrote: »

how is it my bad decision making if the world economy falls on its arse ?

its gas to see how many financial wizards appear after the fact

Part of the reason the world economy fell on it's arse is ledning money out to people that can't pay it back.
I'm no financial wizard, far from it...but I'm sensible enough to know that you don't borrow money that you haven't a hope of being able to service over the course of your working life.

these houses that were being bought and sold were worth whatever someone was willing to pay and whatever some company was willing to loan toward the purchase... as someone who worked in the building trade and watched people queue at showhouses, I couldn't help but wonder why these houses were worth two and three times what they'd cost to build and where all this money to buy them was coming from...no-one asked those questions, they just saw "everyone else" taking the plunge and jumped in themselves.

It's a hugely complex issue and nothing you or I say, arguing about it after the fact is going to change much.

People can't be absolved of all blame in these situations for the mere reason that they didn't know any better...bottom line is they still took the money... they shouldn't have been offered it BUT they shouldn't have taken it... Sorry but that's my take on it.

dj jarvis wrote: »

people did hang - unfortunately it was not the lender or regulator instead it was some gob**** who should never been given the money in the first place

we're all pissed at the lack of regulation and some of the f8ckers that presided over things should be shot at dawn...but again (ad I'm not trying to eb cruel here) they TOOK the money and signed the agreement... suicide as a way out of financial problems is counter productive. Things are never that bad...unfortunately some see it as the only way out.

Eoin

westendgirlie wrote: »

So all mortgage providers are, in some respect, sub prime lenders ???

There's a difference. Subprime lenders provide mortgages with much higher interest rates and less favourable terms. There's a much higher chance of default, so they make sure that they're quids in if that happens.

They're the same as the money sharks you see on UK TV that offer short term loans that come with an APR that's often over 1000%.

westendgirlie

JoeyJJ wrote: »

Well it looks like they paid off the mortgage, however if took his life to do it, not the greatest price, i'm sure she wouldn't want to do it over.

Assuming the mortgage company obeyed law and made them get life assurance to cover the mortgage and signed the legal doc to pay the mortgage co first.

I've never heard of life insurance paying out IF the insured takes their own life. Sure there is a clause in policies for this.

mickydoomsux

westendgirlie wrote: »

I've never heard of life insurance paying out IF the insured takes their own life. Sure there is a clause in policies for this.

Yeah, i'm pretty sure most life assurance doesn't pay out in case of suicide.

maringo

lastlaugh wrote: »

I was watching the Frontline last night and there was a guy on it complaining that he got a 340K mortgage on an apartment that was now worth, he reckoned, about 90K.

WTF was he doing getting a mortgage for that much for an apartment in the first place?

While I sympathise with people who are in negative equatity who want to start a family and are trapped in some pokey two bedroom box, I find it hard to feel sorry for people who bought places as a status symbol.

In case you don't remember, it was impossible to buy a house due to the smallest house in Dublin costing over 500,000 euros. So people went for apartments in order to get onto the housing ladder - as the hype was that houses would go up and up in value and you wouldnt ever get onto the housing ladder. Young couples were just doing what young couples do - buying a home to settle down - I'd call that quite normal behaviour. People were manipulated by a pro-property boom media and government into queuing all night to book these jerry-built apartments. Money was shovelled out by the banks and brokers who couldn't give enough fast enough. It was all about commission and profit. If you remember the "churning" scandal in the insurance industry some years ago - I certainly don't remember any company md going to jail for that. Churning involved persuading their policy holders to move onto a different insurance policy - all with the object of the seller getting commission for a second time. Greedy government cleaning up and lenders operating without properly enforced regulations. A recipe for disaster. Lets hope we learn the lessons from this social and economic fiasco.

dj jarvis

Wertz wrote: »

Oh I wasn't far sighted, I was just single and low waged, hence renting my only option.
I was offered mortgage and I could have fiddled wage slips and borrowed a deposit, but renting still seemed like the way to go for me.



I never called anyone an idiot...people should take out loans they can afford to pay back for the lifetime of the loan and allowing for worst case scenarios over the term...
The whole mess we're in is partly a result of people borrowing and being loaned stupid amounts that drove up the cost of all housing and created an even greater demand (this is no one individual's fault here)



Part of the reason the world economy fell on it's arse is ledning money out to people that can't pay it back.
I'm no financial wizard, far from it...but I'm sensible enough to know that you don't borrow money that you haven't a hope of being able to service over the course of your working life.

these houses that were being bought and sold were worth whatever someone was willing to pay and whatever some company was willing to loan toward the purchase... as someone who worked in the building trade and watched people queue at showhouses, I couldn't help but wonder why these houses were worth two and three times what they'd cost to build and where all this money to buy them was coming from...no-one asked those questions, they just saw "everyone else" taking the plunge and jumped in themselves.

It's a hugely complex issue and nothing you or I say, arguing about it after the fact is going to change much.

People can't be absolved of all blame in these situations for the mere reason that they didn't know any better...bottom line is they still took the money... they shouldn't have been offered it BUT they shouldn't have taken it... Sorry but that's my take on it.



we're all pissed at the lack of regulation and some of the f8ckers that presided over things should be shot at dawn...but again (ad I'm not trying to eb cruel here) they TOOK the money and signed the agreement... suicide as a way out of financial problems is counter productive. Things are never that bad...unfortunately some see it as the only way out.

look you are picking me up wrong or trying for a wind up

they should not have borrowed that amount of cash - full stop
im not trying to defend the stupid borrowing at all
my point started because the vitriol against these people

they made a real stupid decision and in fairness they paid the ultimate
price for their actions

but
the reason we have laws - protection - checks and balances - regulation
is for these very cases - they real blame in my eyes lay with the broker for obviously pushing a lost cause - why ? he wanted his bonus

and they you have the lender at fault for not doing due diligence on the application - then handing 350,00 to someone on welfare - do they not check these things ?

and last the regulator who was busy sitting on his hands and ignoring the real situation developing around him

if ONE of these people was actually doing the job they are feckin paid for this bloke would never have got the cash - and maybe this bloke MIGHT still be alive

when i got my house the bank offered me DOUBLE of what i needed,
now me and the wife had the cop on not to go mad , in actual fact we bought as cheep as we could get - not a great area or house but ok

this couple did not have cop on, and to shield them - us - and the financial community they should have been stopped at day 1

in my opinion the were ****ed from the start - some people will always chance their arm - the above mentioned were supposed to put a stop to it and did not - really who is a fault here? the 3 who were supposed to protect his interests and ours, or some poor ****er who got blinded by the cash and made a mistake

lastlaugh

maringo wrote: »

In case you don't remember, it was impossible to buy a house due to the smallest house in Dublin costing over 500,000 euros. So people went for apartments in order to get onto the housing ladder - as the hype was that houses would go up and up in value and you wouldnt ever get onto the housing ladder. Young couples were just doing what young couples do - buying a home to settle down - I'd call that quite normal behaviour. People were manipulated by a pro-property boom media and government into queuing all night to book these jerry-built apartments. Money was shovelled out by the banks and brokers who couldn't give enough fast enough. It was all about commission and profit. If you remember the "churning" scandal in the insurance industry some years ago - I certainly don't remember any company md going to jail for that. Churning involved persuading their policy holders to move onto a different insurance policy - all with the object of the seller getting commission for a second time. Greedy government cleaning up and lenders operating without properly enforced regulations. A recipe for disaster. Lets hope we learn the lessons from this social and economic fiasco.

500K? That would depend on where you were willing to live.
A friend of mine insisted on buying a house for 450K, while equivalent houses 5mins down the road were the best part of 100K cheaper. Despite this, he bit the bullet and bought the pricey one, two years later he lost his job and is now royally screwed. I knew at the time he was being dangerously silly and letting his 'snobby' side get the better of him.

But yes, people were manipulated and the complete absense of regulation and government/developer/estate agent greed has a lot of people in a bad way.

Snakeblood

wild_cat wrote: »

I heard the lady from the article on drive time this evening.

Her husband was on sick benefit and she was allowed to work 14 hours a week as part of what ever benefit she was on. She did this on their fruit stall each Sunday. At the time she was bringing in 200-300 euro a week from the stall. Over 35 years her repayments were 1800 a month...

They had a tonne of other loans with credit unions and other institutions and they went for the largest loan they could get 350,000 thousand... and rolled all the loans into one.

I was listening to that. She was not allowed to earn 200-300 from the stall, she was either lying or ignorant on that one, and my money would be on lying to social welfare about it, and said that she didn't have a problem with the payments at first because she was paying the money back using the mortgage, which was just bizarre. She should never have been given that loan, she sounded, to be charitable, not bright enough to be given large sums of cash tht she would have to pay back.

Eoin

lastlaugh wrote:

500K? That would depend on where you were willing to live.
A friend of mine insisted on buying a house for 450K, while equivalent houses 5mins down the road were the best part of 100K cheaper. Despite this, he bit the bullet and bought the pricey one, two years later he lost his job and is now royally screwed. I knew at the time he was being dangerously silly and letting his 'snobby' side get the better of him

If he lost his job, would the cheaper mortgage have made much difference?

lastlaugh

Eoin wrote: »

If he lost his job, would the cheaper mortgage have made much difference?

He wouldn't owe as much now, and during the two tears he was working, the repayments would have been a lot less.

Also, his wife is working and they have three kids, so a cheaper mortgage now would mean it would not be quite as difficult as it is for them.

Monty Burnz

maringo wrote: »

In case you don't remember, it was impossible to buy a house due to the smallest house in Dublin costing over 500,000 euros. So people went for apartments in order to get onto the housing ladder - as the hype was that houses would go up and up in value and you wouldnt ever get onto the housing ladder.

What does the hype say now? Cos I'm just going to act on that. **** it, there's no way I'm going to waste my own valuable time looking into it and coming to a common-sense view, I'll just do whatever's in the media. The state will bail me out either way.

maringo wrote: »

Young couples were just doing what young couples do - buying a home to settle down - I'd call that quite normal behaviour. People were manipulated by a pro-property boom media and government into queuing all night to book these jerry-built apartments. Money was shovelled out by the banks and brokers who couldn't give enough fast enough. It was all about commission and profit.

They didn't shovel it out to anyone who didn't ask for it. I know, because I didn't get any.

maringo wrote: »

If you remember the "churning" scandal in the insurance industry some years ago - I certainly don't remember any company md going to jail for that. Churning involved persuading their policy holders to move onto a different insurance policy - all with the object of the seller getting commission for a second time. Greedy government cleaning up and lenders operating without properly enforced regulations. A recipe for disaster. Lets hope we learn the lessons from this social and economic fiasco.

I doubt it. The only lesson I've learned is to act irresponsibly and then cry like a baby when it goes wrong - let everyone else pay for my mistakes. There's a long thread about the autistic and mentally handicapped baby who can only get 4 nappies per day from the HSE due to cuts. Well guess where that money is going? And I wonder how many nappies he'll be getting when we start writing off debt for grown adults who did something stupid of their own volition...

donalg1

Seriously though why would you take out a 300k mortgage when on social welfare beggars belief. And I suppose we are meant to feel sorry for people like this?

dj jarvis

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What does the hype say now? Cos I'm just going to act on that. **** it, there's no way I'm going to waste my own valuable time looking into it and coming to a common-sense view, I'll just do whatever's in the media. The state will bail me out either way.

They didn't shovel it out to anyone who didn't ask for it. I know, because I didn't get any.

I doubt it. The only lesson I've learned is to act irresponsibly and then cry like a baby when it goes wrong - let everyone else pay for my mistakes. There's a long thread about the autistic and mentally handicapped baby who can only get 4 nappies per day from the HSE due to cuts. Well guess where that money is going? And I wonder how many nappies he'll be getting when we start writing off debt for grown adults who did something stupid of their own volition...

you would never guess it was a full moon

My_left_leg

westendgirlie wrote: »

Can someone explain what a sub prime lender is?

it's finance speak for a LOAN SHARK.

they charge exhorbitant rates, and impose punative charges and penalties.
even as you sign the dotted line they know it's only a matter of time before you default, and then guess what :eek:............?

ascanbe

My_left_leg wrote: »

it's finance speak for a LOAN SHARK.

they charge exhorbitant rates, and impose punative charges and penalties.
even as you sign the dotted line they know it's only a matter of time before you default, and then guess what :eek:............?

The Irish banks were, in essence, sub-prime lenders, as they recklessly lent to pretty much anyone without giving a thought to the future of the economy or whether or not they would be able to pay it back.
The preponderance of sub-prime lenders in the US stemmed from the 'Gramm-Leach-Bliley act' which allowed mortgages to be bundled up into securities and sold off.
Our previous government/regulator don't even have that flimsy excuse, though; the bad borrowing/lending practices in our banks were clear to see if they'd bothered to look/understood their implications.

Monty Burnz

dj jarvis wrote: »

you would never guess it was a full moon

I suppose if you can't manage a counter-argument, an insult is a good second best. :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz

My_left_leg wrote: »

it's finance speak for a LOAN SHARK.

they charge exhorbitant rates, and impose punative charges and penalties.
even as you sign the dotted line they know it's only a matter of time before you default, and then guess what :eek:............?

That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that they offer credit to high-risk customers who other lenders won't touch. Because there's a high risk they won't get their money back, they charge borrowers more to cover the losses from those who don't pay them back.

I would never borrow from a sub-prime lender, but then I have the choice. For other people (e.g. those who have defaulted on debt before) it's sub-prime or nothing. I guess some people would rather remove that choice for them.

Gmol

dj jarvis wrote: »

[/B]
listen - dont love the stupid people but you have to protect them from these feckin sharks - country is full of dopes - that is why we are supposed to have regulation - they were mental for borrowing that amount of money - truly mad !!!

BUT they should have never gotten near the cash full stop , so is it their fault ? i dont think so

idiots will ALWAYS try and borrow more than they can afford
can you really blame a idiot for being a idiot ?
in my view 99% of the blame lies with the broker - lender and regulator

easy to scoff at the borrowers stupidity - but they were stupid
what else would you expect them 2 do ?

what are you suggesting here, currently if you are 18 and over you are entitled to enter into a legal contract. Are you suggesting that there should be an IQ test to decide if people are competent to borrow. Banks loan money in their own interest, you are responsible for your own interest and should protect yourself by getting independent advice. Banks are not your friend

Monty Burnz

Gmol wrote: »

what are you suggesting here, currently if you are 18 and over you are entitled to enter into a legal contract. Are you suggesting that there should be an IQ test to decide if people are competent to borrow. Banks loan money in their own interest, you are responsible for your own interest and should protect yourself by getting independent advice. Banks are not your friend

Can you imagine the howls of protest from all these borrowers during the bubble if they'd been turned down for loans for being too ignorant/too stupid? The only complaints I remember from borrowers 5 years ago were along the lines of 'the bank will only lend me (8 times salary), the bastards'...

foxyboxer

We could blame the german pensioners for being prudent and saving billions.

We could blame the introduction of the Euro in 1999 which allowed banks to borrow cheaply (no more fx transaction fees)

We could blame the banks for adopting the mentality of "if they won't deal with us, they'll deal with X or Y bank"

We could blame people for responding to slips thrown in the door "You have been approved for a credit card with ABC Bank"

etc

etc

Gmol

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you imagine the howls of protest from all these borrowers during the bubble if they'd been turned down for loans for being too ignorant/too stupid? The only complaints I remember from borrowers 5 years ago were along the lines of 'the bank will only lend me (8 times salary), the bastards'...

The amount of people who borrowed from the Credit Unions to have their 8% deposit was unreal, then things got even worse with 100% + mortgages and that is where banks have a lot to answer for in conjunction
with the people who borrowed to furnish the house & take a holiday

Monty Burnz

Gmol wrote: »

The amount of people who borrowed from the Credit Unions to have their 8% deposit was unreal, then things got even worse with 100% + mortgages and that is where banks have a lot to answer for in conjunction
with the people who borrowed to furnish the house & take a holiday

For sure.

But all the people who want 'the banks' punished, I wonder exactly what they have in mind? Spanking the buildings? Firing the office staff?

Most (all?) of the senior management who were in place during the bubble are gone, and the the people who owned the banks lost everything. Who is left to punish that should be punished? The new owners, the state?

Gmol

Monty Burnz wrote: »

For sure.

But all the people who want 'the banks' punished, I wonder exactly what they have in mind? Spanking the buildings? Firing the office staff?

Most (all?) of the senior management who were in place during the bubble are gone, and the the people who owned the banks lost everything. Who is left to punish that should be punished? The new owners, the state?

Exactly, the most important thing now is to look at ways of preventing the banks ever getting into such a position again by limiting the amount they can loan once they are recapitalised, there also should be restrictions on the per centage of their loanbook that they can hold in the different sectors. I won't hold my breath as I expect to see the same mistakes being made in about 30 years.

lastlaugh

Gmol wrote: »

Exactly, the most important thing now is to look at ways of preventing the banks ever getting into such a position again by limiting the amount they can loan once they are recapitalised, there also should be restrictions on the per centage of their loanbook that they can hold in the different sectors. I won't hold my breath as I expect to see the same mistakes being made in about 30 years.

What do you think should be done about people who are in negative equity, with huge monthly repayments for the next 30yrs?

Noreen1

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They didn't shovel it out to anyone who didn't ask for it. I know, because I didn't get any.

They were very willing to shovel it out to me, if I had been stupid enough to take it.

I was getting letters from my bank offering me pre-approved loans every second week - lucky for me I was in the UK during the 80s housing crash, and saw more re-possessions than enough.

The sight of bailiffs going in and throwing peoples personal belongings onto the street, while children stand by crying is one that you don't forget easily....

Monty Burnz

lastlaugh wrote: »

What do you think should be done about people who are in negative equity, with huge monthly repayments for the next 30yrs?

Nothing, I would suggest. My shares are in negative equity. Tough titty for me.

Gmol

lastlaugh wrote: »

What do you think should be done about people who are in negative equity, with huge monthly repayments for the next 30yrs?

I think we need to split this group up into the people who just can't pay currently and these debts should be postponed/reduced but not cancelled, I do think that the banks putting people onto interest only payments is unfair as this is where the banks should swallow the pain of the lost interest and let any payment made be against the loan itself. There should be an independent panel(not the banks) established which should determine if people are eligible for this. There could also be a possibility for a bank/private ownership scheme.

Re people who have large negative equity, this is only a problem for people who want to move(and this really affect people in apartments who want to have families). If they are meeting their repayments there is not really a lot that can be done as they like others entered into a contract which hasn't unfortunately turned out as they hoped. They will come out of negative equity eventually going by past economic performance. The banks should allow people to carry a certain amount of negative equity but this should be stringently stress tested as essentially it will load more debt upon people and that is one of the things that got us where we are today

donalg1

dj jarvis wrote: »

[/B]
listen - dont love the stupid people but you have to protect them from these feckin sharks - country is full of dopes - that is why we are supposed to have regulation - they were mental for borrowing that amount of money - truly mad !!!

BUT they should have never gotten near the cash full stop , so is it their fault ? i dont think so

idiots will ALWAYS try and borrow more than they can afford
can you really blame a idiot for being a idiot ?
in my view 99% of the blame lies with the broker - lender and regulator

easy to scoff at the borrowers stupidity - but they were stupid
what else would you expect them 2 do ?

The financial regulator isnt there to make sure people arent stupid now in fairness. To say that 99% of the blame lies with the broker, lender and regulator is a bit silly now.

99% of the blame lies with the borrower full stop. Never have I walked past a bank and had an employee come out and put a gun to my head force me inside and make me sign a mortgage agreement for 300k. The borrowers goes to the bank and asks for a mortgage, thats how it works, they then sign the agreement saying the want to borrow 300k over 30years or whatever nobody has forced them into the bank, nobody has forced them to borrow 300k its their fault if they cant repay it.

They would have been told by the bank what the repayments on 300k are and they would've known what their income is it is then up to them to decide if they can afford it or not. Unfortunately people were told by the bank they could borrow 350k and so they said "sure alright then i will take the 350k from you, thats great thanks very much". Only to then be left in a position where they cant afford the repayments when the fact is they could never afford the repayments so their solution to this problem then is to say "the big stupid bank should never have given me this money, its not fair blah blah blah", well you should never have borrowed the money if you werent prepared to pay it back, you signed a thirty year contract agreeing to pay it back then after 2 years you decide its too expensive and just walk away leaving the tax payer to pay for your mistakes while you get your private rented house, continue to get your social welfare and then get your rent allowance on top of it aswell.

They walked into the bank, they applied for the mortgage, they signed the agreements knowing what thier income is and what the repayments are, they walked out of the bank happy with themselves because they had a mortgage, now they are moaning because they have that mortgage well boo hoo for you, you signed the agreement pay what you owe or go to prison imo, and if you dont like it well then time to get out of this country.

Simple maths can be applied:

Income = x

Mortgage Repayment = y

Money left = z

X = 342 from Social Welfare per week or 1482 per month (standard rate + qual adult + 1 child)

y = 1250 (350000 over 35yrs @2.5%)

x * 52 / 12 = 1482per month

x - y = z

z = 232 (left after monthly mortgage repayments) =approx €80 per week.

So what the borrower needs to do is say can i live on z per week i.e. pay for food and electricity, if yes then the mortgage is affordable if no well then I cant borrow 350k, and maybe i would be better off borrowing 150k

Monty Burnz

dj jarvis wrote: »

idiots will ALWAYS try and borrow more than they can afford
can you really blame a idiot for being a idiot ?

Yes, totally. Any other approach would be akin to saying 'rapists will be rapists', and blaming the police any time they attack someone. Banks are incentivised to look after their own interests, regulators are there to ensure they don't do something so stupid that they risk harming the economy, and customers are supposed to look out for their own interests. Any other system is unworkable and would massively curtail our economic freedom.