Left Ireland for Australia, left keys in door

skyfall2012

The Corinthian wrote: »

How noble of them...

...no doubt many of the more irresponsible bankers had intended on lending responsibly too, until they realized that less responsible bankers weren't.

If you look for a moral justification for the immoral long enough, you'll always find it.

Hi Corinthian, I see on another thread you were voted most intelligent mod, but this post does not live up to what must be your usual standard.

It is not about being noble, you know that.

Good bankers followed the bad, is not an excuse.

What the bankers did was immoral and they are still in their jobs and being paid by the taxpayer and getting their debts paid by the taxpayer even though they have proved to be incompetent.

What the people who bought homes and started families based on what we have always done, are paying the price financially, emotionally and their children will also be suffering the consequences of what those big fat motherf****rs did to this country.

And there has been no justice, moral or otherwise as they are still in their jobs and not in jail.

Ray Palmer

godtabh wrote: »

not once did i mention debt forgiveness

Not directly but mentioning the fact people have issues with the debt still being payable after sale of the house is just debt forgiveness one way or the other. SO if you aren't suggesting debt forgiveness what is your issue with the outstanding loan being paid back?

Ray Palmer

skyfall2012 wrote: »

What the bankers did was immoral and they are still in their jobs and being paid by the taxpayer and getting their debts paid by the taxpayer even though they have proved to be incompetent.

.

Can you name the bankers that you blame and are still in their jobs? At what point is the blame the higher ups? Is it the bank manager ? Lower/higher?

Muilleann

They can reposess properties even if you're in Oz.

Have heard of this happening alright.

I wouldn't worry about it unless it could affect your credit rating and prospects of getting a mortgage in Oz.

Muilleann

Skyfall is right.

These b**t**ds destroyed the country and not one of them has lost their job.

Ray Palmer

Muilleann wrote: »

Skyfall is right.

These b**t**ds destroyed the country and not one of them has lost their job.

I repeat

Can you name the bankers that you blame and are still in their jobs? At what point is the blame, the higher ups? Is it the bank manager ? Lower/higher?

No Pants

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Linking your debt to what you borrowed rather than what you bought with it actually seems fair. I do think the banks could take a certain hit but no more than half.

I can't think of a better way that would be pain free. If the mortgage was non-recourse, the interest rate would have to be higher to reflect the higher risk, or the debt would have to be insured, which would add to the cost of the security for the mortgage would need to be evaluated periodically, which could lead to...actually I don't know how that would be handled.

skyfall2012

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Can you name the bankers that you blame and are still in their jobs? At what point is the blame the higher ups? Is it the bank manager ? Lower/higher?

http://news.efinancialcareers.com/144694/post-crisis-irish-bankers-are-still-sticking-around/
"
One financial services headhunter in Dublin tells us that the majority of his work in recent years has been shipping bankers between the main Irish banks. “Most jobs are related to the working out of bad property loans, and the bulk of experience in this area lies with those who have been employed throughout the crisis,” he said. “Combined with that you also have a lot of long-serving staff that would be expensive to make redundant and who are hanging on until retirement.”

Many would argue that you can’t blame rank-and-file staff for the crimes of those leading the organisations. However, an investigation into the Irish banking crisis by Finnish financier Peter Nyberg in 2011 pointed to “widespread herding” and “disaster myopia” within most bank staff at the height of the crisis, suggesting that most employees were culpable."

Ray Palmer

skyfall2012 wrote: »

http://news.efinancialcareers.com/144694/post-crisis-irish-bankers-are-still-sticking-around/

So the answer is "NO" you can't. If anything the article points out the bankers have not kept their jobs but have other jobs.

You failed to answer any questions put to you. If you are going to claim something maybe you should actually know whether it is true or not.

David Drumm, Anglo’s former chief executive, Sean Fitzpatrick, its former chief executive and chairman, Willie McAteer, finance director and chief risk officer, Pat Whealer, managing director of the bank’s lending business, and John Bowe, head of capital markets – have long since moved on

The Corinthian

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Hi Corinthian, I see on another thread you were voted most intelligent mod, but this post does not live up to what must be your usual standard.

If mods were that intelligent, we wouldn't be doing this for free.

It is not about being noble, you know that.

Good bankers followed the bad, is not an excuse.

What the bankers did was immoral and they are still in their jobs and being paid by the taxpayer and getting their debts paid by the taxpayer even though they have proved to be incompetent.

What the people who bought homes and started families based on what we have always done, are paying the price financially, emotionally and their children will also be suffering the consequences of what those big fat motherf****rs did to this country.

You paint a rather touching but inaccurate generalization of those who bought and now find themselves borderline insolvents.

The reality is that many knowingly overstretched themselves financially, some even told little fibs when going for mortgages that they could just about pay during the boom times without considering the obvious reality that sooner or later a rainy day comes about. Worse still there was this presumption that prices would only rise, never fall, and that once on the first rung of 'the ladder' there would never be any problem trading up - after all, salaries would never drop, unemployment had been vanquished forever and the sun on the Celtic Tiger would never set.

On top of which, many of those borderline insolvents are so, not because they wanted to put a roof over the heads of their children (I can feel the tears welling up already), but because they also bought additional investment property, in the hope to rent or 'flip' it.

What the discussion has turned to now is appeals to emotion implying that unless we forgive such debts people will be topping themselves off like flies, on top of the usual rhetoric how they were all blameless young families only looking to put a roof over the heads of their asthmatic, barefoot children.

Many of the bankers and public officials deserve jail time - there are precious few arguments against this with the fiasco that we've seen unravel in the last few years, let alone the revelations of the last few weeks. However, we cannot use this as a justification to walk away from our own responsibilities and when people start citing articles on how home owners in debt are committing suicide, that it precisely what is implied.

There should be justice, but that justice is to peruse those bankers who acted so recklessly and public officials who acted so incompetently (and whom I suspect have been stifling investigation because they don't want their role to come to light), not to use their actions as a licence to screw our fellow citizens who did not overstretch themselves.

Justice is not a justification to do as they did.

skyfall2012

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So the answer is "NO" you can't. If anything the article points out the bankers have not kept their jobs but have other jobs.

You failed to answer any questions put to you. If you are going to claim something maybe you should actually know whether it is true or not.

It is a fact they have kept their jobs and that articles states it. Focusing on me being able to give you their birth names is just trying to distract from the bigger issue of how they have taken this country for a ride and we have done nothing about it.

And people like you just want to hang the ordinary person who got caught up in the massive crisis they have created.

Here in case you have forgotten:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M-IeRpGPJU

Ray Palmer

skyfall2012 wrote: »

It is a fact they have kept their jobs and that articles states it. Focusing on me being able to give you their birth names is just trying to distract from the bigger issue of how they have taken this country for a ride and we have done nothing about it.

And people like you just want to hang the ordinary person who got caught up in the massive crisis they have created.

Here in case you have forgotten:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M-IeRpGPJU

The article is sensationalist nonsense about the fact that of all the people working in the banks many have long service. What difference does the cashier working in a bank didn't lose their job? Are you saying they should have? A person with no control over banking policies should be fired! How about the canteen worker in Anglo are they to blame? They will be counted as banking staff. A receptionist who works in the bank?

SO I ask again at what level do you blame the banking staff for the crisis?

You sound like an angry person who has no idea who to blame. You can't even name a banker who you feel is responsible. The fact you are claiming bankers who got us into this trouble kept their jobs you should be able to name them. If not it shows you don't actually know anything. Unless you are blaming everybody who works in banks?

I think if you take out a loan you are made aware of the responsibility you take on and that is your responsibility. You haven't made any valid reasoning why that shouldn't apply. You are not showing any knowledge on the subject just ranting from what I can see but you actual have a point I'd love to hear it.

skyfall2012

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I think if you take out a loan you are made aware of the responsibility you take on and that is your responsibility. You haven't made any valid reasoning why that shouldn't apply.

Because when they took the loan out, the economy was healthy, and the economy often contracts that is normal, but this was an economic crisis caused by the lenders and those lenders robbed the banks from the inside and not one has been jailed.

So if the bankers get their debts paid by the taxpayer, then the borrowers should also be shown the same courtesy or we will never get out of this recession and the banks will hold the strings and be the only ones with jobs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVVaqWA93-8

Ray Palmer

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Because when they took the loan out, the economy was healthy, and the economy often contracts that is normal, but this was an economic crisis caused by the lenders and those lenders robbed the banks from the inside and not one has been jailed.

So if the bankers get their debts paid by the taxpayer, then the borrowers should also be shown the same courtesy or we will never get out of this recession and the banks will hold the strings and be the only ones with jobs.

So you know not everybody can watch Youtube.

From your words I take it you don't know what you are talking about. You still can't answer the questions put to you and they aren't difficult. Why do you avoid answering them yet repeat what you already said?

The crisis was actually caused by US banks equities. It is actually the policy of the US banks to accept the property and allow the loan to be written off that started the problem. They had been buddle into equities which crashed the system world wide.

I don't think you understand that what happens if a bank fails. You also don't seem to get that if the loans aren't paid back the banks will fail and just prolong the problem further. Again just sounds like anger without any knowledge of the subject or cause and effect.

skyfall2012

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So you know not everybody can watch Youtube.

From your words I take it you don't know what you are talking about. You still can't answer the questions put to you and they aren't difficult. Why do you avoid answering them yet repeat what you already said?

The crisis was actually caused by US banks equities. It is actually the policy of the US banks to accept the property and allow the loan to be written off that started the problem. They had been buddle into equities which crashed the system world wide.

I don't think you understand that what happens if a bank fails. You also don't seem to get that if the loans aren't paid back the banks will fail and just prolong the problem further. Again just sounds like anger without any knowledge of the subject or cause and effect.

I am not interested in answering your stupid question.

The banking crisis happened worldwide, our banks borrowed heavily from German banks and the rest in the tape recordings.

Bearings Bank the biggest oldest bank in Britain failed and didn't have the hold country paying its debts.

carpejugulum

skyfall2012 wrote: »

our banks borrowed heavily from German banks and the rest in the tape recordings.

evidence?

melekalikimaka

I dont think arguing with skyfall will go anywhere. I have mulled the idea of questioning his opinions but i really dont want to get pulled into it... its like reading a taxidrivers teleprompter

Ray Palmer

skyfall2012 wrote: »

I am not interested in answering your stupid question.

The banking crisis happened worldwide, our banks borrowed heavily from German banks and the rest in the tape recordings.

Bearings Bank the biggest oldest bank in Britain failed and didn't have the hold country paying its debts.

LOL at least you can gave an answer why. While anybody reading this will be pretty clued in to the real reason. :cool:

Baring was not a consumer bank and you can't even get the name right.

You by all means are illustrating a lack of understanding or giving a viable method to deal with mortgage defaulting. I don't think you get what could happen if defaulting was allowed in the manner you suggest.

skyfall2012

Ray Palmer wrote: »

LOL at least you can gave an answer why. While anybody reading this will be pretty clued in to the real reason. :cool:

Baring was not a consumer bank and you can't even get the name right.

You by all means are illustrating a lack of understanding or giving a viable method to deal with mortgage defaulting. I don't think you get what could happen if defaulting was allowed in the manner you suggest.

You are a child. The reason is, the question is a stupid one and forgive me for putting an in 'E' in the name Baring, but you clearly understood which bank I was referring to, which is what is really important.

What I understand is the banks and the government is rotten to the core and they get their debt forgiven and the ordinary person doesn't and not only that but they have to pay the bank's debts as well as their own, so no wonder they are defaulting on their mortgages. Get real.

skyfall2012

carpejugulum wrote: »

evidence?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/how-much-european-particularly-german-money-was-in-the-irish-economy-when-the-music-stopped-1.1339877

and from the Anglo tapes "Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alas!"

skyfall2012

melekalikimaka wrote: »

I dont think arguing with skyfall will go anywhere. I have mulled the idea of questioning his opinions but i really dont want to get pulled into it... its like reading a taxidrivers teleprompter

I didn't see your name mentioned in the thread on the most intelligent mod. Unless, you have something to add to the debate stay out of it.

skyfall2012

I don't think you understand that what happens if a bank fails. You also don't seem to get that if the loans aren't paid back the banks will fail and just prolong the problem further. Again just sounds like anger without any knowledge of the subject or cause and effect.

I was only speaking to an ex Anglo employee, to whom I put the question about Barings Bank and that senario in Britain and why they didn't let Anglo go the same way, to which she replied 'if the did let Anglo go, it would have brought down all the other Irish banks with it' which in my mind is absolute madness, that these banks were so interdependent, I mean as they said on boards all the time WTF?

So now the government is putting pressure on the banks to resolve the loan issue, the banks are putting pressure on the people who are insolvent and they have no where to turn.

They bailed Anglo out of several billion euros, why not bail a couple of thousand families who are insolvent out, it only seems fair and for the record I am not one of those families. I have just bought a house at a very reasonable rate thanks to the crash.

Where were all you load mouths, who seem to understand all this so much better than me, when this sh1t was going down.

Ray Palmer

skyfall2012 wrote: »

You are a child. The reason is, the question is a stupid one and forgive me for putting an in 'E' in the name Baring, but you clearly understood which bank I was referring to, which is what is really important.

What I understand is the banks and the government is rotten to the core and they get their debt forgiven and the ordinary person doesn't and not only that but they have to pay the bank's debts as well as their own, so no wonder they are defaulting on their mortgages. Get real.

There were many questions you didn't answer. Mostly were about you clarifying your opinion. If the questions were stupid the opinion would be ...

What you understand doesn't make it true or sensible. You can't even say what level the problem arises at. You can't comprehend the difference between Baring and Anglo. You have failed to show any real understanding. It's like explaining to a child why they can't have sweets before dinner. Your anger is just undirected and you get angry when people ask you to explain your view.

I do think people should be prosecuted for the crimes they committed but I don't blame the cashier in the bank for it while you apparently do.

gaius c

godtabh wrote: »

I think most people would be happy with that. The fact that the debt isn't satisfied even if the house is taken off you is what a lot of people have issue with.

A lot of people would be happy to walk away from their house but as the market was inflated negative equity means the banks would be after you for the balance. In a genuine case of someone who cant pay their debts this could easily lead to suicide.

This is what we need the personal insolvency legislation for. You will exit the process debt-free and able to start again.

melekalikimaka wrote: »

I dont think arguing with skyfall will go anywhere. I have mulled the idea of questioning his opinions but i really dont want to get pulled into it... its like reading a taxidrivers teleprompter

News just in: Skyfall wants a small proportion of households to receive taxpayer funded bailouts, while everybody else has to pay their way.

cookie1977

gaius c wrote: »

This is what we need the personal insolvency legislation for. You will exit the process debt-free and able to start again.

As long as the bank agrees to the terms on offer. The bank has right of refusal plus with PIPs only being paid if they are successful how many PIPs will take on tough cases to spend lots of time on for the bank to veto an agreement? And if they charge their clients up front how many of the tough cases will be able to pay? PIPs will primarily pick the easy cases to make deals with the bank and so get paid. I foresee huge problems with the PIPs process and the personal insolvency plan

noodler

cookie1977 wrote: »

As long as the bank agrees to the terms on offer. The bank has right of refusal plus with PIPs only being paid if they are successful how many PIPs will take on tough cases to spend lots of time on for the bank to veto an agreement? And if they charge their clients up front how many of the tough cases will be able to pay? PIPs will primarily pick the easy cases to make deals with the bank and so get paid. I foresee huge problems with the PIPs process and the personal insolvency plan

If they refuse then you can stat bankruptcy proceedings.

Not pretty, lasts three years etc but the option is there.

cookie1977

noodler wrote: »

If they refuse then you can stat bankruptcy proceedings.

Not pretty, lasts three years etc but the option is there.

It is indeed not pretty. In fact compared to other jurisdictions while the new Personal Insolvency Act of 2012 brought in useful measures such as 3 year bankruptcy it's still regarded as penal in it's workings.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/personal_finance/debt/personal_insolvency/what_is_bankruptcy.html

Why bring in PIA/PIP if it was only to milk the best debts and allow the banks to veto any deals?

skyfall2012

gaius c wrote: »

News just in: Skyfall wants a small proportion of households to receive taxpayer funded bailouts, while everybody else has to pay their way.

Why not? We did it for the banks, why not for our own, sure they will be paying their taxes too, we will just be freeing them of that noose around their necks.

In turn we will have more people back on their feet and ready to contribute to the economy again.

gaius c

cookie1977 wrote: »

It is indeed not pretty. In fact compared to other jurisdictions while the new Personal Insolvency Act of 2012 brought in useful measures such as 3 year bankruptcy it's still regarded as penal in it's workings.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/personal_finance/debt/personal_insolvency/what_is_bankruptcy.html

Why bring in PIA/PIP if it was only to milk the best debts and allow the banks to veto any deals?

See the spending guidelines? They are generous enough that folk joked Sean Quinn drew them up.

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Why not? We did it for the banks, why not for our own, sure they will be paying their taxes too, we will just be freeing them of that noose around their necks.

In turn we will have more people back on their feet and ready to contribute to the economy again.

It's not "our own". It's a very small proportion of them. More households are pinned to their collars paying increasing rents but you are only concerned about households in arrears. That screams "I have an interest" to everybody here.

Also, to get them back on their feet and spending the wealth they have been gifted and did not earn, the financially competent have been penalised. Try again...

the_syco

skyfall2012 wrote: »

What the people who bought homes and started families based on what we have always done, are paying the price financially, emotionally and their children will also be suffering the consequences of what those big fat motherf****rs did to this country.

Isn't it awful that they bought the house with a gun to their head? Oh, wait, there was no gun to their head.

Muilleann wrote: »

These b**t**ds destroyed the country and not one of them has lost their job.

And by "b**t**ds", you mean those who bought houses at inflated prices, yes?