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

Wertz

dj jarvis wrote: »

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

Honestly, I'm not on the wind up and I don't think I'm picking you up wrong...not got time right now to go in detail posting ATM, will post back later.

[edit] Having read your full post I actually agree with you somewhat (you were the one who initially pulled me up on my "Take two to tango" comment) and being vitriolic towards people who borrowed stupidly and in this case commited suicide isn't where we should be directing that ire...but agin, those peole have to shoulder some of the blame....I 100% agree that they should never have been given a loan in the get go, like an awful lot of others out there...

lastlaugh

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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.

That analagy is deeply flawed.

You can't compare an idiot asking for money and being given it to a rapist raping someone and then blaming the Police.

Monty Burnz

lastlaugh wrote: »

That analagy is deeply flawed.

You can't compare an idiot asking for money and being given it to a rapist raping someone and then blaming the Police.

Why not?

dj jarvis

donalg1 wrote: »

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

very condescending post
just becasue my view differs from you does not make you right

i suggest you examine the concept that just becasue you are not thick
does not mean that others are not

hence that is why he is called the
" The Financial regulator " it IS his job to stop idiots getting money they cant pay back ( really think the clue is in his job title )

but again from your post you are perfect citizen and never need worry about you getting into difficulty - and sure once you know the pit falls we never need worry about somebody else making a mistake

very little compassion in this thread - but i DO love the little financial calculation you supplied - very informative indeed - have you thought of a career in finance ? i guessing you would be a winner at that

condescending enough for ya

donalg1

dj jarvis wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

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

very condescending post
just becasue my view differs from you does not make you right

i suggest you examine the concept that just becasue you are not thick
does not mean that others are not

hence that is why he is called the
" The Financial regulator " it IS his job to stop idiots getting money they cant pay back ( really think the clue is in his job title )

but again from your post you are perfect citizen and never need worry about you getting into difficulty - and sure once you know the pit falls we never need worry about somebody else making a mistake

very little compassion in this thread - but i DO love the little financial calculation you supplied - very informative indeed - have you thought of a career in finance ? i guessing you would be a winner at that

condescending enough for ya

Why would I be compassionate I don't feel sorry for people that borrow 300k while on social welfare.

You obviously don't understand what the financial regulator does. Next you will want him to call out to people's houses to wipe their a***s for them.

The borrower is responsible for taking out the mortgage so they are responsible for repaying it nobody else.

Glad u liked and understood my calculation example maybe I'll send to the people on social welfare think they can get a mortgage

Monty Burnz

dj jarvis wrote: »

very condescending post
just becasue my view differs from you does not make you right

Your view is the condescending one - you are saying that people aren't capable of deciding these things for themselves. We are giving them credit with being able to make a decisions and stand by it.

dj jarvis wrote: »

very little compassion in this thread - but i DO love the little financial calculation you supplied - very informative indeed - have you thought of a career in finance ? i guessing you would be a winner at that

condescending enough for ya

You really aren't helping your case with silly stuff like that.

dj jarvis

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Your view is the condescending one - you are saying that people aren't capable of deciding these things for themselves. We are giving them credit with being able to make a decisions and stand by it.



You really aren't helping your case with silly stuff like that.

keep up - that was the point

Monty Burnz

dj jarvis wrote: »

keep up - that was the point

Indeed, but you are the only one being condescending. I read the post that you claimed was condescending and it looked fine to me.

K-9

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.

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?

I'm sure if it was worth 500k now you wouldn't hear a peep out of him!

Monty Burnz

K-9 wrote: »

I'm sure if it was worth 500k now you wouldn't hear a peep out of him!

No, I'm quite confident his compassion for his fellow citizens - especially those renting and hoping to buy their first place - would ensure that he handed over his 200k or whatever in 'profit' to the taxpayer.

dj jarvis

donalg1 wrote: »

Why would I be compassionate I don't feel sorry for people that borrow 300k while on social welfare.

You obviously don't understand what the financial regulator does. Next you will want him to call out to people's houses to wipe their a***s for them.

The borrower is responsible for taking out the mortgage so they are responsible for repaying it nobody else.

Glad u liked and understood my calculation example maybe I'll send to the people on social welfare think they can get a mortgage

LOL really ??? your are having a joke are you not ???

WHO do you think comes up with and polices the regulations ???

i take it you never read or listen to the bit at the end of ALL financial advertising that states that the lender is governed and regulated by the financial regulator

he makes the rules - he polices the rules ( supposedly ) that's his job
yes the borrower has a responsibility to repay its loan
but your missing the point that he should have NEVER got near getting a loan in the first place

using your logic we dont need road safety laws because you are a good driver and dont speed - not taking into account that the roads are full of gob****es - so should we not protect idiots from themselves and in turn that protects us

if the trinity of financial sharks had worked according to their own rules this chancer would never had got a red cent

if you cant get the concept of regulations are in place to protect stupid people from themselves - then this discussion is going nowhere fast

you are applying your rules assuming that gob****e/chancers don't exist
they do - hence need for regulation

dj jarvis

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Indeed, but you are the only one being condescending. I read the post that you claimed was condescending and it looked fine to me.

really ??

Originally Posted by donalg1
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.

i think this one line fills the requirement for being condescending , i suggest you re read the post

here is what condescending means:
condescending [ˌkɒndɪˈsɛndɪŋ]adj showing or implying condescension by stooping to the level of one's inferiors, esp in a patronizing waycondescendingly adv



now read the rest of his post - not condescending ?

and yes my subsequent post was meant to be condescending , funny you understood mine but not his :-) tut tut

K-9

dj jarvis wrote: »

using your logic we dont need road safety laws because you are a good driver and dont speed - not taking into account that the roads are full of gob****es - so should we not protect idiots from themselves and in turn that protects us

Yeah, the drunk driver or person speeding can lose his licence or get imprisoned. The drink company or car manufacturer doesn't get penalised.

I do see your point but what exactly can we do about the fact there was lax regulation? Personally I think there should be a bank levy to pay for eventualities like this, bit like the motor insurance bureau, but still that doesn't take away from borrowers responsibilities, otherwise we'll learn nothing!

donalg1

dj jarvis wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Why would I be compassionate I don't feel sorry for people that borrow 300k while on social welfare.

You obviously don't understand what the financial regulator does. Next you will want him to call out to people's houses to wipe their a***s for them.

The borrower is responsible for taking out the mortgage so they are responsible for repaying it nobody else.

Glad u liked and understood my calculation example maybe I'll send to the people on social welfare think they can get a mortgage

LOL really ??? your are having a joke are you not ???

WHO do you think comes up with and polices the regulations ???

i take it you never read or listen to the bit at the end of ALL financial advertising that states that the lender is governed and regulated by the financial regulator

he makes the rules - he polices the rules ( supposedly ) that's his job
yes the borrower has a responsibility to repay its loan
but your missing the point that he should have NEVER got near getting a loan in the first place

using your logic we dont need road safety laws because you are a good driver and dont speed - not taking into account that the roads are full of gob****es - so should we not protect idiots from themselves and in turn that protects us

if the trinity of financial sharks had worked according to their own rules this chancer would never had got a red cent

if you cant get the concept of regulations are in place to protect stupid people from themselves - then this discussion is going nowhere fast

you are applying your rules assuming that gob****e/chancers don't exist
they do - hence need for regulation

The lender is governed by them the borrower isn't they are governed by their circumstances if they choose to ignore their circumstances well that's their fault not the financial regulators and not the tax payers.

Why should I pay my mortgage if when I stop paying it I can just walk away and face no consequences and just blame everyone else

dj jarvis

donalg1 wrote: »

The lender is governed by them the borrower isn't they are governed by their circumstances if they choose to ignore their circumstances well that's their fault not the financial regulators and not the tax payers.

Why should I pay my mortgage if when I stop paying it I can just walk away and face no consequences and just blame everyone else

please point out to me WHERE is said that ???

i never said or implied that , not once
i have said repeatedly that the borrower has a responsibility to repay the loan - a loan he should never have got in the first place

and your point that the lender is governed by them and the borrower is not is total tosh - the regulations apply to ALL the party's - they were not enforced by ANYONE

no matter how you try spin it - he should never have got a cent and the people at fault were the broker/lender/regulator

and in fairness if you think this was a isolated case you are nuts - there are so many case's because banks and the regulator stopped doing their job

and tell me how the tax payer is getting stung in this case ?
IMC are not a nama lender - so tough **** on them for not checking in the first place

donalg1

dj jarvis wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

The lender is governed by them the borrower isn't they are governed by their circumstances if they choose to ignore their circumstances well that's their fault not the financial regulators and not the tax payers.

Why should I pay my mortgage if when I stop paying it I can just walk away and face no consequences and just blame everyone else

please point out to me WHERE is said that ???

i never said or implied that , not once
i have said repeatedly that the borrower has a responsibility to repay the loan - a loan he should never have got in the first place

and your point that the lender is governed by them and the borrower is not is total tosh - the regulations apply to ALL the party's - they were not enforced by ANYONE

no matter how you try spin it - he should never have got a cent and the people at fault were the broker/lender/regulator

and in fairness if you think this was a isolated case you are nuts - there are so many case's because banks and the regulator stopped doing their job

and tell me how the tax payer is getting stung in this case ?
IMC are not a nama lender - so tough **** on them for not checking in the first place

The broker lender or regulator weren't at fault they didn't make these people take out a mortgage why can't you understand this?

the tax payer is paying through increased income taxes and USC and soon to be property tax as a result of people walking away leaving bad debts because they got greedy and took out a mortgage while on social welfare

westendgirlie

Why do dictionary's use the word you want to look up to explain what the word means????

dj jarvis

donalg1 wrote: »

The broker lender or regulator weren't at fault they didn't make these people take out a mortgage why can't you understand this?

the tax payer is paying through increased income taxes and USC and soon to be property tax as a result of people walking away leaving bad debts because they got greedy and took out a mortgage while on social welfare[/QUOTE]


wrong again - in this case that does not apply - non nama bank

and if you have a real problem with your taxes increasing becasue of bad lending practice's i suggest you tackle the real culprits - the banks and the regulator ( again they are at fault )
true no one forced him to borrow - i do understand this fact - as i have said REPEATEDLY - why cant you read my post and understand this ?

and to absolve the regulator/broker and lender of all responsibility is just a ridiculous statement

please point out to me HOW this man would have got ANY money if the above 3 had done the job REQUIRED of them by law

the fact that you cant grasp that fact truly baffles me

( not being funny but how is death " walking away " from anything - he's dead - he paid the ultimate price for his actions.
so when are the rest going to pay the price for their actions ? it's people with your blinkered attitude that will deflect attention from the real villains in all this **** )

westendgirlie

At the end of the day the decision and responsibility of a mortgage lies with the home owner. They took themselves to the bank or mortgage broker. They were not sold a mortgage by a door to door salesman.

I'd hazard a guess that the social welfare couple used a broker. No bank would take their giro receipts as payslips. So the broker tells them how much they need to show as income if they want 300k. The couple then go away, falsify documents to suit, bring them back to the broker who sends them on to the lender.

The broker may of known how they would tweak their documents but he wasn't the one that done the tweaking.

The strangest thing I heard lately was that the welfare and HSE computers do not interact with each other. All government departments and also credit bureaus should have the facility to key in a PPS number and all income (past and present) should pop up. The dodgy P60 would be picked up straight away.

lastlaugh

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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.

lastlaugh wrote: »

That analagy is deeply flawed.

You can't compare an idiot asking for money and being given it to a rapist raping someone and then blaming the Police.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why not?

Just because an idiot asks for money, and gets it, doesn't make it his fault for asking for it. It's equally, if not more idiotic (and grossly negligent) for someone to give him the money knowing he won't get it back.

Rapists raping people? How can you compare the two? Maybe if the rapist ASKED the Guards would they mind if he raped someone and the Guards said "OK, go on then", then there might be some dubious (and rather OTT) comparison to be made...

Monty Burnz

lastlaugh wrote: »

Just because an idiot asks for money, and gets it, doesn't make it his fault for asking for it. It's equally, if not more idiotic (and grossly negligent) for someone to give him the money knowing he won't get it back.

Why is it not the idiot's fault for asking for money?

lastlaugh wrote: »

Rapists raping people? How can you compare the two? Maybe if the rapist ASKED the Guards would they mind if he raped someone and the Guards said "OK, go on then", then there might be some dubious (and rather OTT) comparison to be made...

You can compare the two by not excusing the act. The act is the problem - the police will try to enforce the rules and punish transgressors, but if the people committing the acts refrained, the police wouldn't even be needed.

Raskolnikov

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why is it not the idiot's fault for asking for money?

If a junkie comes to your door off his rocker on drugs, and asks you a few hundred quid; would you hand it over to him? Of course not. It is after all your money, and you are liable to lose it, if you lend it to people who won't/can't pay it back. What happened here is no different. A bank (Stepstone Mortgages aka IIB aka KBC Bank), gave a loan to a man and woman, even though they knew they were on welfare, knew they were already heavily in arrears and that the rate was so punitive, they borrowers would never be able to pay it back. It seems pretty clear to me that this is the banks problem.

dj jarvis

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why is it not the idiot's fault for asking for money?

You can compare the two by not excusing the act. The act is the problem - the police will try to enforce the rules and punish transgressors, but if the people committing the acts refrained, the police wouldn't even be needed.

you see the point your missing is that the police would never help anyone to rape anybody
the broker in this case not only broke criminal law he broke financial regulation, yet everyone is getting on the case of some smuck who was out of his depth

if the broker knowingly help defraud the bank he should be hauled into court and dealt with accordingly

and for the last time i will say , the borrower is at fault and culpable for his actions ( no matter how tragic the outcome )

but NONE of this would have happened if criminal actions by the broker - want of profit by the lender and complete apathy by the regulator had been tackled at the start

the best analogy i can summon at the moment is this

a off license give's an alcoholic a bottle of whiskey on the never never - the dipso drinks the total bottle in 10 minutes and goes psycho,
destroying parked cars and damaging the off license ,

now the proprietor knew that this would end badly and would never get paid - but still gave it to him

who is at fault ? not the dipso becasue he's going to do what dipso's do

the broker KNEW this was a non runner from the start - but still pushed it for the borrower

in my opinion the broker is at fault because he is supposed to be the professional in this deal - and then the lender for hiring and not managing this broker - and lastly the regulator has criminally enforceable laws to prevent this from happening , but these we just ignored

they gave the alco the bottle and then give out when he gets pissed

dj jarvis

Raskolnikov wrote: »

If a junkie comes to your door off his rocker on drugs, and asks you a few hundred quid; would you hand it over to him? Of course not. It is after all your money, and you are liable to lose it, if you lend it to people who won't/can't pay it back. What happened here is no different. A bank (Stepstone Mortgages aka IIB aka KBC Bank), gave a loan to a man and woman, even though they knew they were on welfare, knew they were already heavily in arrears and that the rate was so punitive, they borrowers would never be able to pay it back. It seems pretty clear to me that this is the banks problem.

thank you , this is what i have been saying from the start

and the lack of compassion for the man and his family is shocking
he is at fault - but nowhere near as the rest of them

Monty Burnz

Raskolnikov wrote: »

If a junkie comes to your door off his rocker on drugs, and asks you a few hundred quid; would you hand it over to him? Of course not. It is after all your money, and you are liable to lose it, if you lend it to people who won't/can't pay it back. What happened here is no different. A bank (Stepstone Mortgages aka IIB aka KBC Bank), gave a loan to a man and woman, even though they knew they were on welfare, knew they were already heavily in arrears and that the rate was so punitive, they borrowers would never be able to pay it back. It seems pretty clear to me that this is the banks problem.

So you are comparing sober people asking for money with a drug addict under the influence of drugs looking for money to buy drugs?

Are you proposing that these people were addicted to money and were out of their heads at the time the applied for the loans?

(by the way I heard the radio interview: the woman said she didn't bother reading the forms she was signing as there were too many of them, and she thought that the payments were manageable because at first she used the mortgage itself to pay them back! :eek:)

Monty Burnz

dj jarvis wrote: »

you see the point your missing is that the police would never help anyone to rape anybody
the broker in this case not only broke criminal law he broke financial regulation, yet everyone is getting on the case of some smuck who was out of his depth

But the broker was not was not the regulator, so the idea of the police facilitating the crime doesn't really apply.

Incidentally, the brokers undoubtedly behaved shamefully here. I don't want people to think that I'm saying that they played no role - they facilitated the borrowing in the first place.

dj jarvis

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So you are comparing sober people asking for money with a drug addict under the influence of drugs looking for money to buy drugs?

Are you proposing that these people were addicted to money and were out of their heads at the time the applied for the loans?

(by the way I heard the radio interview: the woman said she didn't bother reading the forms she was signing as there were too many of them, and she thought that the payments were manageable because at first she used the mortgage itself to pay them back! :eek:)

JESUS CHRIST you are answering your own question and defeating your argument !!!!

they were never suitable for it in the first place
what kind of a moron does not read mortgage forms and just signs them any way?

the kind of person who should not have a mortgage , full stop case closed

idiots will be idiots - maybe the broker should have been honest instead of thinking of his bonus - the bank should have not been focused on it profit and payed more attention to the fact that a clown that was on the dole wanted 350,000 euro

really how are you not getting this ????

But the broker was not was not the regulator, so the idea of the police facilitating the crime doesn't really apply.
( also the broker is bound by the laws and regulations so it does apply - he can not knowingly promote a fraud - he is supposed to stick to the rules )

Monty Burnz

dj jarvis wrote: »

they were never suitable for it in the first place
what kind of a moron does not read mortgage forms and just signs them any way?

The kind of moron who should still be accountable for their actions?

dj jarvis wrote: »

the kind of person who should not have a mortgage , full stop case closed

So do you propose exams to determine who should and should not be allowed get a mortgage? Not a bad idea, but the human rights people will be all over you like a rash - they would regard it as an outrage.

dj jarvis wrote: »

really how are you not getting this ????

Weren't you complaining about condescension earlier? Or is it only you who the 'no condescension' rule applies to?

I get your point, I simply don't agree with it. You know - much like you don't agree with mine.

lastlaugh

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The kind of moron who should still be accountable for their actions?

If somebody let a Fox into a Chicken coop, and then the Fox killed some Chickens, who is more at fault?
The Fox, for doing what it does naturally?
Or the person who let the Fox in, knowing that it would probably kill the chickens?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So do you propose exams to determine who should and should not be allowed get a mortgage? Not a bad idea, but the human rights people will be all over you like a rash - they would regard it as an outrage.

The question here should be "should not be eligible to get a mortgage?"

Monty Burnz

lastlaugh wrote: »

The question here should be "should not be eligible to get a mortgage?"

What's the difference between 'eligible' and 'allowed' in practical terms? Are you genuinely proposing tests whereby you will be told you are too stupid to borrow?

dj jarvis

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What's the difference between 'eligible' and 'allowed' in practical terms? Are you genuinely proposing tests whereby you will be told you are too stupid to borrow?

everyone is allowed - not everyone is eligible

they have application requirements to weed out unsuitable applicants
this is industry norm - so the human right people would have no issue with this ( why anyone would think that amnesty would care about this is beyond me but i digress )

really im having trouble framing this that its understood ( and yes i do understand that people dont agree with me - thats great )

he was a out of work - on the dole - asking for 350,000
only way he was going to get this mad scheme off the ground if everyone else in the deal either does not care or is operating illeagly

people were paid and trained to prevent people like him getting in the door
now either they were dumb as rocks or on the take

he was a idiot but the rest were calculating a profit from this idiot

really who is worse ??

in my view he was used by his broker - and both were happy with this

( So do you propose exams to determine who should and should not be allowed get a mortgage - they always have and always will - they got past this exam by the broker cheating for them )

Raskolnikov

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you proposing that these people were addicted to money and were out of their heads at the time the applied for the loans?

(by the way I heard the radio interview: the woman said she didn't bother reading the forms she was signing as there were too many of them, and she thought that the payments were manageable because at first she used the mortgage itself to pay them back! :eek:)

Yep, that's about the height of it. Given their previous debts, it seems clear they had an addiction to credit. From listening to the woman on the radio and as you have shown, it also seems clear that this woman is completely ignorant and didn't have a clue what she was getting into. The bank would have known all this, but yet they still gave this woman a ridiculous sum of money, even though anyone with half a brain would have told you it would never have been paid back.

This poor woman should be put into social housing and have the bank take the house and write off her debt. If they had done this when she first had problems, her husband might be alive today. Instead, the whole process has been drawn out and the misery has been just piled on this family's life.

Monty Burnz

dj jarvis wrote: »

everyone is allowed - not everyone is eligible

they have application requirements to weed out unsuitable applicants
this is industry norm - so the human right people would have no issue with this ( why anyone would think that amnesty would care about this is beyond me but i digress )

really im having trouble framing this that its understood ( and yes i do understand that people dont agree with me - thats great )

he was a out of work - on the dole - asking for 350,000
only way he was going to get this mad scheme off the ground if everyone else in the deal either does not care or is operating illeagly

But we don't know that anything illegal happened, and we only have one side of the story. I'm a little confused as to whether you are arguing for stricter regulations as to what customers a company can take on, and actual tests of the competence of the applicant to borrow money. It seems you want the former?

K-9

I say we should regulate bad analogies.

dj jarvis

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But we don't know that anything illegal happened, and we only have one side of the story. I'm a little confused as to whether you are arguing for stricter regulations as to what customers a company can take on, and actual tests of the competence of the applicant to borrow money. It seems you want the former?

if someone who was on the dole got a loan for 350,00 then trust me something illegal was done , if not by the borrower then the broker

and from my experience with brokers i would happily say lots of them were dodgy as hell ( see my previous posts )

we dont need and did not need more regulation , problem was it was ignored and not enforced ( back to the regulator )

as for competence test they kind of have them already

you need to have a job , have a savings track record , earn enough to cover bad times and have 10% of the asking price as a deposit

people who have all of the above tend to be competent enough to have a complex long lasting financial agreement

the people in question had none of the above - so who rubber stamped the loan ??

Monty Burnz

K-9 wrote: »

I say we should regulate bad analogies.

I genuinely think that some people don't understand what analogies are. They are not meant to be replicas of the situation - they are supposed to represent an abstraction of an aspect of the situation.

Wertz

dj jarvis wrote: »

please point out to me HOW this man would have got ANY money if the above 3 had done the job REQUIRED of them by law

He'd have gone from one bank to the next and from them to the sub prime crowd and eventually got one of them to sign off on the deal, probably by cooking the books a wee bit more to show that they could meet the payments...at the end of it all that's all the lender cares about.

The lenders (all whom were regulated, but not in the way you think they should have been, forensically second guessing every single mortgage application and granting) aren't going to sign over money to someone who doesn't at the very least present a decent case on paper that they can get the monthly amount... which is why it's ALWAYS going to come back to it primarily being the fault of the borrower; they're the ones who get into sh*t if they can't pay the debt...
But the lender gets into sh*t too when an awful lot of these people show up as defaulters, and then we all get into trouble, when the banks show up one september evening and tell the government they've gone and lent out everyone's deposits and the big bad international markets won't give them crdit....and THAT'S what the regulator failed to avoid and what he should have been watching...not the micro, but the macro situation. You can't have someone watching individual borrowers, but there should be someone looking at lending practices on a wide scale and seeing the oncoming sh*tstorm from a long way off.
There's your failure of regulation, not making sure some bloke doesn't top himself cos the scratcher won't cover the monthly direct debit...

Monty Burnz

dj jarvis wrote: »

as for competence test they kind of have them already

you need to have a job , have a savings track record , earn enough to cover bad times and have 10% of the asking price as a deposit

There are loads of people who took loans under exactly those conditions and are now trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities. Do you have a view on such people?

On the other hand, we still have the problem of people who are 'too stupid' to be given loans. If they have collateral to back up their loan liabilities (e.g. their homes) but borrowing money is clearly a stupid move for them, should that be allowed?

dj jarvis

Wertz wrote: »

He'd have gone from one bank to the next and from them to the sub prime crowd and eventually got one of them to sign off on the deal, probably by cooking the books a wee bit more to show that they could meet the payments...at the end of it all that's all the lender cares about.

The lenders (all whom were regulated, but not in the way you think they should have been, forensically second guessing every single mortgage application and granting) aren't going to sign over money to someone who doesn't at the very least present a decent case on paper that they can get the monthly amount... which is why it's ALWAYS going to come back to it primarily being the fault of the borrower; they're the ones who get into sh*t if they can't pay the debt...
But the lender gets into sh*t too when an awful lot of these people show up as defaulters, and then we all get into trouble, when the banks show up one september evening and tell the government they've gone and lent out everyone's deposits and the big bad international markets won't give them crdit....and THAT'S what the regulator failed to avoid and what he should have been watching...not the micro, but the macro situation. You can't have someone watching individual borrowers, but there should be someone looking at lending practices on a wide scale and seeing the oncoming sh*tstorm from a long way off.
There's your failure of regulation, not making sure some bloke doesn't top himself cos the scratcher won't cover the monthly direct debit...

but reputable company's DO check applications

when i got mine they contacted my employer 3 times to discuss documents i had surrendered - i would imagine the also contact revenue to check p60's - they also have your bank details and they can check these at will , did they not think of doing a 6.50 euro credit check on this guy ? ring the dept of welfare and see was he on the books ?

sure he most likely lied at some point - but the lenders have to expect that some people are going to lie and have checks and balances to prevent it

basic stuff really - but your macro micro point is valid
but it does not change the fact that rules and regulations are in place for this very scenario but were ignored as far as i can see

you say that "at the end of it all that's all the lender cares about. " well if they vetted customers as per the regulation they would have caught this chancer at day 1
they chose to ignore this and ended up losing out

you would imagine this would stop them from doing it again but i wont hold my breath

dj jarvis

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There are loads of people who took loans under exactly those conditions and are now trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities. Do you have a view on such people?

On the other hand, we still have the problem of people who are 'too stupid' to be given loans. If they have collateral to back up their loan liabilities (e.g. their homes) but borrowing money is clearly a stupid move for them, should that be allowed?

i do

if they passed all criteria for the loan , did not lie on the application and had no back issues why they should not have a loan and signed the deal then they should honor the debt , simple as that

if they knew what they were getting into then they have no real reason for not paying it back and also should not be looking to me or you to bail them out

as for your second question if borrowing is a stupid move financially then the bank should spot this and not give the loan - that is a no brianer for me

K-9

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I genuinely think that some people don't understand what analogies are. They are not meant to be replicas of the situation - they are supposed to represent an abstraction of an aspect of the situation.

Obviously, hence me replying to DJ Jarvis's analogy.

Once you start getting analogies of analogies...............................

Monty Burnz

K-9 wrote: »

Obviously, hence me replying to DJ Jarvis's analogy.

Once you start getting analogies of analogies...............................

Yes, my head hurts too.

Wertz

Not sure about revenue and social welfare playing ball with a lending institution checking a paper trail...data protection act etc (open to correction here)
Contacting employers and checking with credit agency is done, but as I saw with my own colleagues and friends, tarted up payslips and nod and a wink to employer or their accountant and that was that looked after.

I already said way back up the thread that part of the problem was mortgage seller in bank or broker of same making % on loan value and the short sightedness and lacksadaisical attitude to borrowers...what's really in it for any bank to hand over a wad of cash to someone who can't pay it back, in order for them to acquire a property that is in all probability (even by the most blinkered of onlookers) way over valued...

I honestly can't believe that a bank looked at this pair, on the social and thought "Yeah there's a good bet"...I have to think that creative application form filling and credit union acquired deposits played a large part in the granting of the loan.

BTW I hadn't heard that interview but a big old WTF at them paying some of the installments with the money they had just drawn down!

Monty Burnz

dj jarvis wrote: »

as for your second question if borrowing is a stupid move financially then the bank should spot this and not give the loan - that is a no brianer for me

Ok, but then what if I go to the garage and buy a new car when there's nothing really wrong with my old one? It's a stupid move that may cause me problems down the road - should the salesman be responsible for this?

Or if I go into a jeweller and spend 5k on a Rolex - leaving no money for food for the month. Should the salesman refuse to sell to me?

At what point does a salesman become responsible for my decisions?

dj jarvis

K-9 wrote: »

Obviously, hence me replying to DJ Jarvis's analogy.

Once you start getting analogies of analogies...............................

LOL i did say it was off the top of my head - but lets face it on AH you cant be very abstract because no one would understand what you were getting at

in this debate i will in future refrain from further crappy analogy's

K-9

dj jarvis wrote: »

if someone who was on the dole got a loan for 350,00 then trust me something illegal was done , if not by the borrower then the broker

and from my experience with brokers i would happily say lots of them were dodgy as hell ( see my previous posts )

we dont need and did not need more regulation , problem was it was ignored and not enforced ( back to the regulator )

as for competence test they kind of have them already

you need to have a job , have a savings track record , earn enough to cover bad times and have 10% of the asking price as a deposit

people who have all of the above tend to be competent enough to have a complex long lasting financial agreement

the people in question had none of the above - so who rubber stamped the loan ??

Well that was the problem and why the sub prime crisis got so bad in the states. I think the US Govt. is taking some sort of action against sub prime type lenders who just sold on extremely risky mortgages and pocketed the profits and didn't care less about the consequences. Our sub prime sector never took of thank God, the problem was, "normal" banks were giving out what I'd call sub prime loans anyway.

The Irish Central Bank was giving warning to Irish banks as far back as 1998, about credit union loans used to finance deposits then, nobody listened, people just wanted a house and feck it if I've to borrow the deposit. The "I deserve it" mentality, I call it.

Wertz wrote: »

He'd have gone from one bank to the next and from them to the sub prime crowd and eventually got one of them to sign off on the deal, probably by cooking the books a wee bit more to show that they could meet the payments...at the end of it all that's all the lender cares about.

The lenders (all whom were regulated, but not in the way you think they should have been, forensically second guessing every single mortgage application and granting) aren't going to sign over money to someone who doesn't at the very least present a decent case on paper that they can get the monthly amount... which is why it's ALWAYS going to come back to it primarily being the fault of the borrower; they're the ones who get into sh*t if they can't pay the debt...
But the lender gets into sh*t too when an awful lot of these people show up as defaulters, and then we all get into trouble, when the banks show up one september evening and tell the government they've gone and lent out everyone's deposits and the big bad international markets won't give them crdit....and THAT'S what the regulator failed to avoid and what he should have been watching...not the micro, but the macro situation. You can't have someone watching individual borrowers, but there should be someone looking at lending practices on a wide scale and seeing the oncoming sh*tstorm from a long way off.
There's your failure of regulation, not making sure some bloke doesn't top himself cos the scratcher won't cover the monthly direct debit...

I don't think the sub prime lenders fell within normal regulation, for all the effect it would have had anyway! PTSB were involved in Springboard IIRC, they could be punished, but that'll probably be at the taxpayers expense!

dj jarvis

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok, but then what if I go to the garage and buy a new car when there's nothing really wrong with my old one? It's a stupid move that may cause me problems down the road - should the salesman be responsible for this?

Or if I go into a jeweller and spend 5k on a Rolex - leaving no money for food for the month. Should the salesman refuse to sell to me?

At what point does a salesman become responsible for my decisions?

he is never responsible for it because its not HIS money
its either the buyers or the banks
if its the buyers savings and he wants to blow it then its his problem
if its the banks money then its up to them to make sure he can pay it back

what a person spend the cash on is really irrelevant i think - the question is the ownership of the cash

that sales man should not care a jot , not his job - its the banks and the regulator

donalg1

Raskolnikov wrote: »

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you proposing that these people were addicted to money and were out of their heads at the time the applied for the loans?

(by the way I heard the radio interview: the woman said she didn't bother reading the forms she was signing as there were too many of them, and she thought that the payments were manageable because at first she used the mortgage itself to pay them back! :eek:)

Yep, that's about the height of it. Given their previous debts, it seems clear they had an addiction to credit. From listening to the woman on the radio and as you have shown, it also seems clear that this woman is completely ignorant and didn't have a clue what she was getting into. The bank would have known all this, but yet they still gave this woman a ridiculous sum of money, even though anyone with half a brain would have told you it would never have been paid back.

This poor woman should be put into social housing and have the bank take the house and write off her debt. If they had done this when she first had problems, her husband might be alive today. Instead, the whole process has been drawn out and the misery has been just piled on this family's life.

Put her into social housing so she can end up not paying her rent and up in arrears again then what. And what about the people on the housing list for ten years are you saying she should get a house before them because she made stupid decisions.

Monty Burnz

dj jarvis wrote: »

he is never responsible for it because its not HIS money
its either the buyers or the banks
if its the buyers savings and he wants to blow it then its his problem
if its the banks money then its up to them to make sure he can pay it back

what a person spend the cash on is really irrelevant i think - the question is the ownership of the cash

that sales man should not care a jot , not his job - its the banks and the regulator

But the money in the loan scenario is the product, analagous to the car or the watch. It's not the salesman's watch or car either - they belong to the company they are working for. So what's the difference?

dj jarvis

donalg1 wrote: »

Put her into social housing so she can end up not paying her rent and up in arrears again then what. And what about the people on the housing list for ten years are you saying she should get a house before them because she made stupid decisions.

in fairness thats a fairly big assumption on your part - if she is still on the dole than she will get subsidized rent

as for jumping the q for housing - i would imagine the city would look at her situation and make a decision based on that
you would hope that a homeless woman with 3 children who have lost their father to suicide would get a sympathetic ear regardless of her previous financial mistakes

its funny but Sean FitzPatrick who nearly bankrupt us all is still living in his big house in greystones , tell ya what - kick that slimy little prick out on his ear and rent it out to this homeless family

if we had true justice in this banana republic the REAL people to blame for the majority of this mess would be breaking rocks with small hammers on spike island