Left Ireland for Australia, left keys in door

gaius c

OMD wrote: »

Why would lending have to be at 0%?

The whole point of a split mortgage is that it's "put away" and that the mortgage holder doesn't pay the interest on it but the bank still owe this money to somebody else and that somebody else will want to be paid. With interest.

With inflation house price goes up. With inflation and time generally speaking income goes up.

Assuming we have inflation. Japan has had deflation most years since 1990.

carpejugulum

skyfall2012 wrote: »

What part of this invalidates my claim:
"Germany and Ireland, however Bundesbank statistics indicate a growing German investment. In early 2000, German banks had €20 billion invested in Ireland, according to consolidated figures. By the end of 2006 that had quadrupled to €79 billion. By September 2008, the month of the bank guarantee, the level was €135 billion – a 575 per cent increase compared to eight years earlier. Investment declined rapidly between September to October 2010 from €157.5 billion to €78.3 billion. Currently the amount is €51 billion.
The Central Bank of Ireland says Bundesbank data sets relating to Ireland carry health warnings. A law change in 2001 allowed IFSC-based non-Irish-owned banks issue covered bonds which impinge minimally on the Irish domestic bank sector but were still collated in Irish banking data. Thus Bundesbank data relating to Irish banks is, the Irish Central Bank warns, distorted by large capital flows of German banks to and from their IFSC subsidiaries.

Bondholders
Tracking the identity or nationality of bank bondholders is a difficult task. Purchases are anonymised by a clearing house system and bonds change hands rapidly. Consolidated Central Bank figures from August 2008 nevertheless provide an interesting snapshot. Debt securities, including short- and long-term bonds, contributed €107.97 billion to Irish bank financing a month before the bank guarantee. Of this total, one quarter of bonds were in Irish hands, while 63 per cent were held outside the euro area. Euro area banks comprised just 13 per cent of bondholder total"

Your claim that "our banks borrowed heavily from German banks" is disproved by the article

skyfall2012

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've heard the odious debt argument before, but have yet to hear a cogent argument as to why our debt qualifies as such.

After all, odious debts are "considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state" - in other words, you need an undemocratic country with an unaccountable regime that then goes and squanders or embezzles the debt.

Ireland is a developed, democratic nation. We elected - repeatedly - the government that screwed things up, so we are not in a position to wash our hands of responsibility and thus what we have fails to qualify as odious debt.

I would have thought that the Fianna Fail government could be classed as a regime, since they didn't regulate the banks, or building industry and these rules are in place to protect the nation from fraudsters. Bertie Ahern has been accused of accepting gifts and other members of that government. Corruption was rife. The nation is now paying a debt to bondholders that they did not incur and we are not benefiting from the taxes we are paying. If we had that money to put into the economy, to create jobs etc. we could turn this whole recession around.

A committee would have to be set up to determine if our debt is odious or not. We don't agree with having to pay this debt and this could be our get out clause, why is nobody using it.

OMD

gaius c wrote: »

The whole point of a split mortgage is that it's "put away" and that the mortgage holder doesn't pay the interest on it but the bank still owe this money to somebody else and that somebody else will want to be paid.

That is not the whole point of split mortgages. Some banks may charge 0% but they won't all do so in every case by any means. In fact 0% would be the exception. Banks already offering split mortgages do not charge 0% on the split portion

khards

OMD wrote: »

That is not the whole point of split mortgages. Some banks may charge 0% but they won't all do so in every case by any means. In fact 0% would be the exception. Banks already offering split mortgages do not charge 0% on the split portion

All of the split mortgage talk, like the debt forgiveness is just take, here is why:

1, Banks have to fund themselves from the funding markets. Who is going to lend the Irish banks at 0% for the duration of the split mortgage.
2, Why would the banks lend money for split mortgage to high risk distressed borrowers when they can lend it to new safer borrowers at 5%.

That is why there are such low levels of split mortgages. It doesn't make financial sense to give split mortgages.

Potatoeman

skyfall2012 wrote: »

I would have thought that the Fianna Fail government could be classed as a regime, since they didn't regulate the banks, or building industry and these rules are in place to protect the nation from fraudsters. Bertie Ahern has been accused of accepting gifts and other members of that government. Corruption was rife. The nation is now paying a debt to bondholders that they did not incur and we are not benefiting from the taxes we are paying. If we had that money to put into the economy, to create jobs etc. we could turn this whole recession around.

A committee would have to be set up to determine if our debt is odious or not. We don't agree with having to pay this debt and this could be our get out clause, why is nobody using it.

The deal was made already. Its too late to go back on it now. These are all things that should have been raised before the deal was made.
The bondholders didnt expect their money back but I suspect pressure from Europe worried about contagion played a big part in the decision but simple terms and confitions could have saved us from all this. This comes back to incompitance in the government and public service.

The Corinthian

skyfall2012 wrote: »

I would have thought that the Fianna Fail government could be classed as a regime, since they didn't regulate the banks, or building industry and these rules are in place to protect the nation from fraudsters.

Certainly we could classify them as a regime, if we want to just reinvent what a regime is.

Bottom line is that for the debt to be odious, we realistically would have had to have no democratic say in our government, but we did and we were the ones who collectively re-elected them repeatedly until the horse had bolted and only then did we vote them out. Were they a regime, they'd still be in power as we'd have no say in that matter.

But we did and so the buck stops with us, no matter how much you want to abdicate responsibility.

A committee would have to be set up to determine if our debt is odious or not. We don't agree with having to pay this debt and this could be our get out clause, why is nobody using it.

Because it's pretty clear that it's not odious debt to all but those desperately grabbing at any straw that will allow us to shirk our own role in the matter.

And internationally, this is also the opinion - we'd have little sympathy if we tried to claim the odious debt defence - and all we would achieve is to be seen as defaulters with no excuse to do so.

skyfall2012

The Corinthian wrote: »

Certainly we could classify them as a regime, if we want to just reinvent what a regime is.

Bottom line is that for the debt to be odious, we realistically would have had to have no democratic say in our government, but we did and we were the ones who collectively re-elected them repeatedly until the horse had bolted and only then did we vote them out. Were they a regime, they'd still be in power as we'd have no say in that matter.

But we did and so the buck stops with us, no matter how much you want to abdicate responsibility.

Because it's pretty clear that it's not odious debt to all but those desperately grabbing at any straw that will allow us to shirk our own role in the matter.

And internationally, this is also the opinion - we'd have little sympathy if we tried to claim the odious debt defence - and all we would achieve is to be seen as defaulters with no excuse to do so.

I would like to say I have never voted for Fianna Fail. However I would argue that the people who did, did not know of the corruption that was rife during their reign. This only became evident when the horse bolted.

That government also decide to bail out a bank which they did not regulate and pay that bank's debts with our taxes which should be going towards our children's education, health etc.

They were more underhand than your regular regime, more cloak and dagger, but doesn't take away from the fact, what they did was wrong and the nations is suffering, and I don't believe we are partly to blame.

The Corinthian

skyfall2012 wrote: »

I would like to say I have never voted for Fianna Fail. However I would argue that the people who did, did not know of the corruption that was rife during their reign. This only became evident when the horse bolted.

You could argue that, but I doubt many would believe you - unless we were all hiding under our beds when CJ Haughey's, amongst other Fianna Fail politicians, corruption came to light. The PD's even ran a campaign strategy, in the 2002 general election, where they sold themselves, sucessfully, on the idea that you can't trust Fianna Fail alone in government.

So pleading ignorance, other than being no defence even if true, isn't very believable here.

Not that government corruption is the issue with how the bank bailout was handled; incompetence was. So even there, I'm not sure what is the relevance of complaining about their corruption is.

They were more underhand than your regular regime, more cloak and dagger, but doesn't take away from the fact, what they did was wrong and the nations is suffering, and I don't believe we are partly to blame.

What cloak and dagger? You'll need to explain this.

Nonetheless, you've not managed to demonstrate at all that as a democratic nation, we - the people - are blameless. All you've done is present rather dubious defences of ignorance or conspiracy, despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary.

So just because you say you 'believe' it, doesn't make it true.

NIMAN

Hasn't been a post from the OP in a long time, I wonder how things happened from their point of view?

cookie1977

They were banned. I think they may have also operated under another name here too.

Dalton54

KegglesMcS wrote: »

After talking to the banks a number of times in Ireland who failed to let me sell my houses I had no choice but to pack the bags and go. The company I worked for had a great offer for me in Oz and I felt I was depriving my kids of a better life by not accepting.

I have 2 properties in Ireland and I haven't paid either mortgage in 13 months. I offered to take on the negative equity as a personal loan but they refused.

My question is when living in Australia, can the banks/law force me to come home at any point?

My only concern is if I were home for christmas for example could I be arrested or am I being stupid?

you have to paid for it .:D

Shakti

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Why not let the houses to someone on a low income living in a smaller house for a nominal fee. That way the houses can be put to good use and the banks cant touch them.
The way it stands they will sell your houses at auction for 50k and take you to court for the rest.

Why are the poor considered viable as tenants in a recession and pariahs during prosperity?

The Corinthian

Shakti wrote: »

Why are the poor considered viable as tenants in a recession and pariahs during prosperity?

Because of the law of supply and demand.

Potatoeman

skyfall2012 wrote: »

I would like to say I have never voted for Fianna Fail. However I would argue that the people who did, did not know of the corruption that was rife during their reign. This only became evident when the horse bolted.

That government also decide to bail out a bank which they did not regulate and pay that bank's debts with our taxes which should be going towards our children's education, health etc.

They were more underhand than your regular regime, more cloak and dagger, but doesn't take away from the fact, what they did was wrong and the nations is suffering, and I don't believe we are partly to blame.

Bertie was being investigated by the tribuneral before the election and it was pretty clear he had shady dealings. People deserve what happened for voting for a party with him in charge. So many didnt care because they voted regionally as their local rep 'looked after' them. People need to look at how they vote and the consequences of those decisions.

Shakti

The Corinthian wrote: »

Because of the law of supply and demand.

That's not an actual though is it just the convenient vernacular of capitalism (economic theory), it's not an actual statute or physical law. Do you know the real reason?

The Corinthian

Shakti wrote: »

That's not an actual though is it just the convenient vernacular of capitalism, it's not an actual statute or physical law. Do you know the real reason?

Vernacular of capitalism? Now I've heard it all...

The relationship between supply and demand has been recognised since before even the Physiocrats, let alone capitalism. Even Soviet economics recognised this, although it was never able to efficiently manage it. So to try and boil it down to some sort of capitalist cliché or expression simply betrays that you don't actually understand, or even know, what it is.

So here you go, in simple terms; when demand outstrips supply, prices tend to rise and sellers can afford to be picky about whom they sell to, while when supply outstrips demand price drops as does the ability for sellers to be picky.

Now, in case you can't apply the above to your question, this means that in a boom period, with more potential tenants than accommodation, owners can choose to prefer wealthier, employed tenants who can afford higher rents. In a recession, the supply of employed tenants decreases, forcing owners to lower rent (unless they want to keep their properties empty) which then means the poor can afford them.

On top of this poorer, unemployed, tenants statistically cause more problems for owners than wealthier, employed, ones. This leads to a further bias which will manifest itself if the market allows.

It's not all that complicated - at least it's not if you actually know what supply and demand is.

Shakti

I doubt either of us have heard it all, though your explanation is quite clear and concise on the surface it doesn't explain the source or motivation for any of it or rather I'll take your Physiocrats and raise you Cicero "Cui bono?"

The Corinthian

Shakti wrote: »

I doubt either of us have heard it all, though your explanation is quite clear and concise on the surface it doesn't explain the source or motivation for any of it or rather I'll take your Physiocrats and raise you Cicero "Cui bono?"

Let me see... what possible motivation would an owner have to rent their property for the best rent they can get in the present market and if possible also rent to a tenant less likely, statistically, to cause problems?

Shakti

first rule of business 'protect your investment', Cui bono?

The Corinthian

Shakti wrote: »

first rule of business 'protect your investment', Cui bono?

You asked why are the poor considered viable as tenants in a recession and pariahs during prosperity? You got your, pretty obvious, answer; despite erroneously believing that supply and demand are simply capitalist clichés or expressions.

So what's your point now? That people shouldn't protect their investments? Or that in some magical utopia they wouldn't? Perhaps, but that's not what you asked.

Potatoeman

The Corinthian wrote: »

You asked why are the poor considered viable as tenants in a recession and pariahs during prosperity? You got your, pretty obvious, answer; despite erroneously believing that supply and demand are simply capitalist clichés or expressions.

So what's your point now? That people shouldn't protect their investments? Or that in some magical utopia they wouldn't? Perhaps, but that's not what you asked.

One thing landlords seem to forget though is that you are safer not raising rent if you might lose a tenant. They need ti factor in the loss of having the place unoccupied. It frequently will take up to two years of the increased price to make up for every month the property is empty.

Potatoeman

The Corinthian wrote: »

You asked why are the poor considered viable as tenants in a recession and pariahs during prosperity? You got your, pretty obvious, answer; despite erroneously believing that supply and demand are simply capitalist clichés or expressions.

So what's your point now? That people shouldn't protect their investments? Or that in some magical utopia they wouldn't? Perhaps, but that's not what you asked.

One thing landlords seem to forget though is that you are safer not raising rent if you might lose a tenant. They need to factor in the loss of having the place unoccupied. It frequently will take up to two years of the increased price to make up for every month the property is empty.

The Corinthian

Potatoeman wrote: »

One thing landlords seem to forget though is that you are safer not raising rent if you might lose a tenant. They need ti factor in the loss of having the place unoccupied. It frequently will take up to two years of the increased price to make up for every month the property is empty.

That's a bit of a generalization. Certainly you get some clueless landlords who couldn't run a brothel on an oil rig, but most I believe (hope) are not so stupid.

Shakti

'pretty' obvious? maybe 'attractive' or 'easy' or as I contended earlier 'convenient' but to 'Cui Bono? certainly not the poor, but your answer... 'rent to the rich when times are good, rent to the former rich when times are bad, poor people are also naive and take heart in that they are just only caught up in the ass end of some slavish algebraic equation served simply to the huddled as 'supply and demand' and sure statistics show they are criminals anyway? that's what your saying right?

The Corinthian

Shakti wrote: »

'pretty' obvious? maybe 'attractive' or 'easy' or as I contended earlier 'convenient' but to 'Cui Bono? certainly not the poor, but your answer... 'rent to the rich when times are good, rent to the former rich when times are bad, poor people are also naive and take heart in that they are just only caught up in the ass end of some slavish algebraic equation served simply to the huddled as 'supply and demand' and sure statistics show they are criminals anyway? that's what your saying right?

No.

Maybe you should ask someone else who'll give you the answers you want to hear.

Shakti

glad to hear it,
enjoy your evening

riclad

IF the bank refused the offer, give me a personal loan for the remainder of the mortgage, i,m going to oz to get a job .
i have little sympathy for the bank.
Many landlords bought a house, in 2006 ,the rent barely covered the loan.
They were depending on rising houses to make a profit ,
eg in 10 years ,it,ll be worth 300k,
I,LL make 100k profit if i sell in 2016 ,ie loan is 180k.
This does,nt make proper business sense , its more like gambling , speculation.
And they pushed up the prices for ordinary people who just want to live somewhere.
They were buying a house for 180k, renting it out for 1000 euro per month.
Just hoping it,ll rise in value.

skyfall2012

Potatoeman wrote: »

Bertie was being investigated by the tribuneral before the election and it was pretty clear he had shady dealings. People deserve what happened for voting for a party with him in charge. So many didnt care because they voted regionally as their local rep 'looked after' them. People need to look at how they vote and the consequences of those decisions.

I agree with that, people need to use their vote. What I have real issue with in this country, is: That you can rob a bank and get away with it, because the government don't want investigations because of what it will unearth. They give golden handshake to the robbers and then use the taxpayers money to pay for the robbery.

I didn't vote Fianna Fail and I didn't buy a big house during the boom and there are many others like me.

As if we weren't backward already with prefabricated schools and people on trolley's in the halls of the hospital. It is only down hill from here.

So nobody is looking for blood from the bankers or govt., but want to see people who bought houses in the boom squirm.

The Corinthian

skyfall2012 wrote: »

So nobody is looking for blood from the bankers or govt., but want to see people who bought houses in the boom squirm.

I think you're confusing wanting to make someone squirm with not being willing to pay for the mistakes of those people on top of the mistakes of our politicians and bankers.