Borrow €400k from AIB and only pay back €250k

OldNotWIse

riclad wrote: »

BANKS would probably get less money,if they take back a house, sell it
than giving say 30 per cent writeoff ,
eg the case where loan is 400k,
house is worth 170k now,
Client is now on reduced income ,struggling to pay the full mortgage.
as long as client pays the new mortgage every month.
Most irish banks are owned by the government ,
its the government taxpayer who pays rent allowance for people who lose their homes.

Whats wrong with making them rent?

cookie1977

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Whats wrong with making them rent?

Nothing as long as they can afford it but what if they cant? What then?

Daith

cookie1977 wrote: »

Nothing as long as they can afford it but what if they cant? What then?

What happens if anyone can't afford to pay rent? They need to change something.

I'm not advocating putting people on the streets to be clear.

jmayo

maryishere wrote: »

The bank actually done the right thing here. A lot of the other banks are doing similar deals on the quiet / signing confidentiality clauses. The banks were partially responsible for the madness that happened between 05 - 06 and they know it. It was not normal times even though they told people it was and there would be a soft landing etc.

Ehh hello, do you seriously think our bubble began in 2005 ?
With thinking like that no wonder the country is so fooked. :rolleyes:

cookie1977 wrote: »

I dont believe that will happen. You have no statistics or evidence to back up that argument at all.

But can you disprove his point ?
These deals are all happening behind closed doors.
It suits lots of connected people for all fo this to be done behind closed doors, even though it is our money they are affectively spending.

The PAC can trawl through charities, REHAB, etc to find where taxpayers money is going, but yet we have a taxpayer funded bank now probably giving away north of 50 million in give aways to certain customers. :rolleyes:
FFS NAMA was specifically designed to function in much the same way.
Good old a nod and a wink Ireland.

Deise Vu wrote: »

I think you'll find those are crocodile tears.

The absolute pre-requesites for any debt relief deal is that the bank (taxpayer) will get a better return than from an immediate sale and that the mortgagee is left with only minimal 'appropriate' living expenses after the revised mortgage. These deals are only done where the mortgagee has shown willingness to co-operate, after humiliating trawls by strangers though all their income and expenditure and then only after review by a credit committee at Head Office (emphatically not the local bank manager who hasn't the authority to buy tippex these days let alone make large write-offs).

Ahh the poor things.
OH wait they are affectively getting 100k-200k in return for the humiliating trawl.

Here try this for size.

Deise Vu wrote: »

This has been explained countless of times on this and other threads but you are wasting your time trying to explain this to the mob. They want people punished and, as far as I can see, total and utter carnage in the market with repossessions right left and centre so they can pick up a house on the ultra cheap and the taxpayer can kiss their royal asses.

The fooking sense of entitlement is coming from you, not the ones you want to pay for your decisions.

The_Conductor wrote: »

The banks received bailouts sufficient to repair their capital ratios (without writing down the values of their mortgage loan books). If you want to write down those values- the Irish banking sector needs another 40-45 billion.......

When does the money go back to the tax payer? Seeing as AIB still haven't paid off their bailout from the 80's, I think you can kiss that one goodbye.

AIB/EBS have gotten around 20 billion and AFAIK they have paid back less than 2 million to date.
Of course that does not factor in the hit when buying loans from them into NAMA.

On the other side BOI have riased money in the markets to repay the state, rather than fire out wads of money to deliquent borrowers to help keep them with their assets.

cookie1977

jmayo wrote: »

But can you disprove his point ?
These deals are all happening behind closed doors.
It suits lots of connected people for all fo this to be done behind closed doors, even though it is our money they are affectively spending.

The PAC can trawl through charities, REHAB, etc to find where taxpayers money is going, but yet we have a taxpayer funded bank now probably giving away north of 50 million in give aways to certain customers. :rolleyes:
FFS NAMA was specifically designed to function in much the same way.
Good old a nod and a wink Ireland.

The adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be applied both ways.

You were one of them calling for "help the poor taxpayer" before. Would you not agree that turning (for example) a 200,000 asset into a 300,000 performing loan not be a good thing? Thus if it remains performing the banks then have got themselves a good deal. Do you just feel the person is getting away with it and you dont want that to happen? Honest questions.

Zamboni

cookie1977 wrote: »

Nothing as long as they can afford it but what if they cant? What then?

Hi, how are you.
I rent. What happens if I can no longer afford to pay rent?

Deise Vu

jmayo wrote: »

The fooking sense of entitlement is coming from you, not the ones you want to pay for your decisions.

I own my own home. When the clowns were trading up and buying rentals and holiday homes I was paying off my mortgage and putting money into my pension. Now that the party is over the Govt is ripping off my pension to keep theirs and the public service pensions in the style to which they are accustomed.

Eventually finances will dictate that our pension system is unsustainable and the Govt's solution, in consultation with their 'partners' in the public service unions will inevitably be to decide the only solution will be to means test people like me for the OAP. Now that's something worth getting worked up about (to Molotov cocktail level).

Banks making the best deal they can to get the best return they can is emphatically not something to get worked up about. It is a routine commercial decision that should have been made years ago.

cookie1977

Zamboni wrote: »

Hi, how are you.
I rent. What happens if I can no longer afford to pay rent?

I'm not saying it's perfect. In fact the opposite, it's not. But can you come up with an alternative that results in increased cash coming into the banks and reduced risk to the tax payer?

Daith

cookie1977 wrote: »

I'm not saying it's perfect. In fact the opposite, it's not. But can you come up with an alternative that results in increased cash coming into the banks and reduced risk to the tax payer?

What is the risk to the tax payer? That the banks need to be bailed out again?

Zamboni

cookie1977 wrote: »

I'm not saying it's perfect. In fact the opposite, it's not. But can you come up with an alternative that results in increased cash coming into the banks and reduced risk to the tax payer?

Currently - I'm just trying to reconcile why you're concerned with the accommodation requirements of an evicted "homeowner" but not too concerned with the accommodation requirements of an evicted tenant.

But as you ask here is an alternative.
Feel free to rip apart.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89537291

OldNotWIse

cookie1977 wrote: »

Nothing as long as they can afford it but what if they cant? What then?

There are plenty of people struggling to pay rent. These people still have two incomes.

jmayo

cookie1977 wrote: »

The adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be applied both ways.

I know that was my point.
Because this is all hidden we have no idea what is going on.
The big noticable thing is that AIB seems to be more willing to give money away.
Now forgive me for wondering if it has anything to do with the fact that AIB is owned by the state, told somewhat what to do by the government, and is funded by us taxpayers.
And please don't tell me AIB is better run or I will die of laughter.

cookie1977 wrote: »

You were one of them calling for "help the poor taxpayer" before. Would you not agree that turning (for example) a 200,000 asset into a 300,000 performing loan not be a good thing? Thus if it remains performing the banks then have got themselves a good deal. Do you just feel the person is getting away with it and you dont want that to happen? Honest questions.

I as a taxpayer do want a good deal, but there is a danger here.
I don't want a situation where people are affectively rewarded for not being able to or unwilling to repay their debts, all the while people who bust their nuts to do so are punished.
There is a good probablity that some of the people who get these debt writeoffs will be in a better position than those who have been just about keeping their heads above water, whilst at the same time they have now also kept their probably better property.

And yes I will gladly admit I don't want the shysters who spent, for the most part borrowed money, like there was no tomorrow and now getting an easy time of it whilst those who were prudent getting screwed over.

jmayo

Deise Vu wrote: »

I own my own home. When the clowns were trading up and buying rentals and holiday homes I was paying off my mortgage and putting money into my pension. Now that the party is over the Govt is ripping off my pension to keep theirs and the public service pensions in the style to which they are accustomed.

I am in the same situation, but that doesn't mean I want to be screwed over even more.

Deise Vu wrote: »

Eventually finances will dictate that our pension system is unsustainable and the Govt's solution, in consultation with their 'partners' in the public service unions will inevitably be to decide the only solution will be to means test people like me for the OAP. Now that's something worth getting worked up about (to Molotov cocktail level).

Look realistically Io believe I will be working well into my seventies.
I also realise that our soverign debt is unsustainable unless we somehow manage the same growth as during our tech and cosntruction bubbles.

Deise Vu wrote: »

Banks making the best deal they can to get the best return they can is emphatically not something to get worked up about. It is a routine commercial decision that should have been made years ago.

Repossessions are normal routine commerical decisions as well.
Given the level of arrears on some mortgages some people should have been repossessed a couple of years ago.

Zamboni wrote: »

Currently - I'm just trying to reconcile why you're concerned with the accommodation requirements of an evicted "homeowner" but not too concerned with the accommodation requirements of an evicted tenant.

But as you ask here is an alternative.
Feel free to rip apart.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89537291

AFAIK the poster is a landlord and property owner granted with debts, not a tenant.

Also you should remember the boom days.
Tenants are at the bottom of the totem pole.
You know those failures who couldn't or wouldn't buy property.

On the other hand the poor sods who were duped into buying overpriced property by the big bad bankers deserve all our pity and our cash. :rolleyes:

cookie1977

Zamboni wrote: »

Currently - I'm just trying to reconcile why you're concerned with the accommodation requirements of an evicted "homeowner" but not too concerned with the accommodation requirements of an evicted tenant.

But as you ask here is an alternative.
Feel free to rip apart.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89537291

But what about the homeless what about all types of victims. It doesn't just stop with renters. I see your point but I'm not sure what you want me to say. I hope those evicted for not paying rent do get help but as long as the government is spending money on keeping the banks afloat there wont be money for RA, social housing etc... The quicker we get the banks sorted the less likely they'll need more tax payer money and the more we can direct what limited government money there is into helping others.

Is this an ideal situation for anyone? Hell no! Am I unhappy that we're having to do right downs? Hell yes. We've kept up servicing our mortgages by cutting back everything we could but that's what we signed up to. Do I begrudge others getting these right downs? Yes definitely if they were can pay wont pay, but not so much if the cant pay. I dont believe everyone who is in arrears and behind are there because they over burdened themselves by taking silly unpayable mortgages. There's lots of reasons why they're in that situation. What I want is my country to get back on some significant growth so I can see changes in my own situation. If debt right downs contribute to that then yes I'm for it, as long as they're sustainable deals and can pay wont pay arrears dont benefit (which I dont believe they will).

cookie1977

jmayo wrote: »

I know that was my point.
Because this is all hidden we have no idea what is going on.
The big noticable thing is that AIB seems to be more willing to give money away.
Now forgive me for wondering if it has anything to do with the fact that AIB is owned by the state, told somewhat what to do by the government, and is funded by us taxpayers.
And please don't tell me AIB is better run or I will die of laughter.



I as a taxpayer do want a good deal, but there is a danger here.
I don't want a situation where people are affectively rewarded for not being able to or unwilling to repay their debts, all the while people who bust their nuts to do so are punished.
There is a good probablity that some of the people who get these debt writeoffs will be in a better position than those who have been just about keeping their heads above water, whilst at the same time they have now also kept their probably better property.

And yes I will gladly admit I don't want the shysters who spent, for the most part borrowed money, like there was no tomorrow and now getting an easy time of it whilst those who were prudent getting screwed over.

Then perhaps I'm thinking more with my head then my heart. Your comments seem to point to you thinking that all those in arrears are there because if their own fault. Do you see all those in arrears as the same or do you differentiate at all?

maryishere

riclad wrote: »

THE problem here is houses were overvalued,
banks were doing reckless lending,
now houses in some areas are worth 40-50 per cent of the loan amount.
And peoples incomes have dropped, taxes have increased.
IF banks go for 1000 s of repossessions ,it may push house prices down further.

some property in some areas (down the country) are worth only 20 to 30% per cent of the loan amount - what the banks thought was good security.
Time for some of the banking class to take some pain. Many bankers made greedy, selfish and poor decisions and have not lost anything at all. Everyone else has.

Not surprising most of the other banks have been doing quiet deals for some time.

Nino Brown

cookie1977 wrote: »

Then perhaps I'm thinking more with my head then my heart. Your comments seem to point to you thinking that all those in arrears are there because if their own fault. Do you see all those in arrears as the same or do you differentiate at all?

It's not necessarily about fault, its about good vs bad investments. They did sign a contract promising to repay an amount of money, they obviously didn't consider that their income may decline, which is nobody's fault but their own. Plenty of others did study the potential consequences and opted out, so the information was there to make an informed decision.
I understand in some cases both earners may have lost jobs, which may not have been foreseeable. If that is the case, they made a financial decision which went bad, and they are bankrupt, just like is the case in any other investment gone bad.
People make bad investments everyday and don't get bailed out by the taxpayer, I don't see why this should be any different.

Nino Brown

maryishere wrote: »

Time for some of the banking class to take some pain. Many bankers made greedy, selfish and poor decisions and have not lost anything at all. Everyone else has.

CEO's have been sacked and many are now bankrupt, some are facing criminal prosecution, shareholders have been wiped out. They haven't exactly got out scott free.

maryishere

Nino Brown wrote: »

CEO's have been sacked and many are now bankrupt, some are facing criminal prosecution, shareholders have been wiped out. They haven't exactly got out scott free.

The vast majority got away scott free, and kept their lifestyle, bonuses and pensions. Yes the shareholders were wiped out - some pensioners even lost their life savings - but the bankers do not care about them / show no remorse.

maryishere

Nino Brown wrote: »

People make bad investments everyday and don't get bailed out by the taxpayer,

They do - and did - if they are a banker. I don't see why you / they should be any different.

Nino Brown

maryishere wrote: »

The vast majority got away scott free, and kept their lifestyle, bonuses and pensions. Yes the shareholders were wiped out - some pensioners even lost their life savings - but the bankers do not care about them / show no remorse.

This wasn't all the banks fault. They didn't force a mortgage on to anybody. And if people kept paying their debts the good times would have kept on rolling.
Yes some pensioners lost their life savings, but not all of them, because many of them invested in less risky assets, you have to take responsibility for bad financial decisions, you can;t reap the rewards when things go your way, and come crying when it doesn't.
Yes the banks played a big part in the crisis, but people who were just a culpable are all too willing to point the finger at the big bad banks.

Nino Brown

maryishere wrote: »

They do - and did - if they are a banker. I don't see why you / they should be any different.

I bought shares in a Uranium company, UEC, two weeks before Fukishima, do you think the taxpayers should give me my money back? After all my investment didn't work out, I lost money, and I don't like losing money, so I should be bailed out right?

maryishere

Nino Brown wrote: »

I bought shares in a Uranium company, UEC, two weeks before Fukishima,

No you did not. And UEC was not one of the few blue chip companies of the Irish Stock exchange, unlike the Irish banks.

Nino Brown wrote: »

do you think the taxpayers should give me my money back?

I never suggested shareholders should be given their money back.
However I did suggest the vast majority of bankers got away scott free, and kept their lifestyle, bonuses and pensions. In other countries rogue bankers have gone to jail. None have here.

The_Morrigan

maryishere wrote: »

No you did not. And UEC was not one of the few blue chip companies of the Irish Stock exchange, unlike the Irish banks.



I never suggested shareholders should be given their money back.
However I did suggest the vast majority of bankers got away scott free, and kept their lifestyle, bonuses and pensions. In other countries rogue bankers have gone to jail. None have here.

Mod Note: please do not make gross generalisations about an entire industry. Not every banker had/has a lifestyle, nor did they act illegally to gain bonuses and pensions. The actions of a few do not represent the thousands of people who work in the financial industry in Ireland.

Nino Brown

maryishere wrote: »

No you did not. And UEC was not one of the few blue chip companies of the Irish Stock exchange, unlike the Irish banks.

Yes I did. And blue chip doesn't mean anything, they're not risk free.

maryishere wrote: »

I never suggested shareholders should be given their money back.
However I did suggest the vast majority of bankers got away scott free, and kept their lifestyle, bonuses and pensions. In other countries rogue bankers have gone to jail. None have here.

No, but people bought houses as an investment, that investment went bad, it's no different than buying stocks.
How many CEO's kept their jobs? You can't blame the traders for what happened. They were hired to do a job(make the bank money), they did the job very well, and were well rewarded.
I'm not saying bankers are without blame, and some should be criminally charged, but they are only one part of the problem. The other part of the problem is what this thread is about, the people who made bad investments, but don't want to pay for them.

maryishere

Nino Brown wrote: »

No, but people bought houses as an investment, that investment went bad, it's no different than buying stocks.

That's the silliest thing I heard in a long time. You are equating a bankers job and responsibilities to that of a stockbroker. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

A stockbroker buys and sells shares. He sells share to anyone and everyone who has the ability to pay the price of the shares. He arranges money - not the promise of money in 5 or 25 years time - to anyone who has shares to sell.

A banker has a responsibility to the shareholders ( and indeed given all that has happened you could argue society at large as well ) to lend prudently - not to lend money to borrowers who cannot afford to repay the loans. Lending at 20 times income and not stress testing loans is wrong, very wrong. Bankers did not do it in the 70's, 80. or 90's, they do not do it now . Bankers are not like stockbrokers if - as you say - some should be criminally charged.

Nino Brown wrote: »

The other part of the problem is what this thread is about, the people who made bad investments, but don't want to pay for them.

Correct, but most people who made bad investments have already taken a lot of pain. Time for the banks to take some pain too when they contributed to the problem. That happened in Iceland I believe, and they are better off for it.

cookie1977

Nino Brown wrote: »

It's not necessarily about fault, its about good vs bad investments. They did sign a contract promising to repay an amount of money, they obviously didn't consider that their income may decline, which is nobody's fault but their own. Plenty of others did study the potential consequences and opted out, so the information was there to make an informed decision.
I understand in some cases both earners may have lost jobs, which may not have been foreseeable. If that is the case, they made a financial decision which went bad, and they are bankrupt, just like is the case in any other investment gone bad.
People make bad investments everyday and don't get bailed out by the taxpayer, I don't see why this should be any different.

And what about developers who ended up in NAMA after going bust. Many got to maintain their lifestyles. It's either one rule for all or it isn't and if it isn't then we have to accept that. You cannot cherry pick your morals.

Oh and tell (what I've underlined and bold) that to junior bond holders.

Nino Brown

maryishere wrote: »

That's the silliest thing I heard in a long time. You are equating a bankers job and responsibilities to that of a stockbroker. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

No I'm not, where did you get that from? I'm equating people buying houses as an investment to people buying stocks.

maryishere wrote: »

Correct, but most people who made bad investments have already taken a lot of pain. Time for the banks to take some pain too when they contributed to the problem. That happened in Iceland I believe, and they are better off for it.

You won't get any arguments from me, the banks need to take more pain too. Yes they lended recklessly, but only to people willing to borrow recklessly. Now both parties have deal with the consequences. But it seems that people who were responsible/prudent are now being asked to pay for the mistakes of others, and that is not fair, and it's not how investments in free market should work.

Nino Brown

cookie1977 wrote: »

And what about developers who ended up in NAMA after going bust. Many got to maintain their lifestyles. It's either one rule for all or it isn't and if it isn't then we have to accept that. You cannot cherry pick your morals.

Oh and tell (what I've underlined and bold) that to junior bond holders.

Who's cherry picking? I never mentioned developers, or junior bond holders. I think the same rules should apply to them.

cookie1977

Nino Brown wrote: »

Who's cherry picking? I never mentioned developers, or junior bond holders. I think the same rules should apply to them.

But the point is they dont. If you want a fair system where if you make a mistake you're punished and you're completely responsible for any actions then it has to be clear from the outset. As another example, think of the penalty points fiasco.