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

mjv2ydratu679c

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).

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.

Don't want anyone punished - want the best return for the taxpayer. When a write off is given I would prefer to see a debt for equity swap. I think this would represent better value for the taxpayer.

FullblownRose

I am a bit clueless but like plenty of others am wondering whether this will be offered to people genuinely struggling to pay. If not, why did this family get to remain in their home when others who are technically as eligible for the same deal cannot? How can you approach a bank about it or can you not do that? I'm glad for them and would not like to see anyone evicted, I am just wondering.

cookie1977

FullblownRose wrote: »

I am a bit clueless but like plenty of others am wondering whether this will be offered to people genuinely struggling to pay. If not, why did this family get to remain in their home when others who are technically as eligible for the same deal cannot? How can you approach a bank about it or can you not do that? I'm glad for them and would not like to see anyone evicted, I am just wondering.

It all depends on whether a deal that could be worked out would a) work for the mortgagee and get them back on the straight and narrow and b) work for the bank as opposed to repossession. If you're already in MARP you could contact the bank yourself and open discussion or look for help/support from an organisation like the people in the article.

mrwhite2

Moral hazard is real and these stories make it worse. I know people personally who left full time work to go part time as they are more likely to get a deal. When they initially went to get a deal they were told the bank weren't engaging and the only way was to stop paying the morgage. Seemed crazy. I don't resent them but do feel sorry for others struggling. There income was the same on half welfare but they could get some cash work so they were better off and the bank suddenly wanted to deal.

Were I do feel resentment is for some of the write offs for businesses. I employ 10 people with 3 kids and make not much more than I would if on welfare, true I have checked. I have a decent business but am saddled with debts I accured while securing my business premise in 2004. I can pay the morgage just but feels like all I am doing is working to pay off a huge morgage. I am not looking for sympathy or help I can do it and keep 10 people in work. However I now here of lots of Buisnesss having debts written off however I am told to do this I have to stop paying loans back. am I now competing with businesses with a lower cost base as they had write downs. Who is policing what businesses get write downs and which dont

cookie1977

mrwhite2 wrote: »

Moral hazard is real and these stories make it worse. I know people personally who left full time work to go part time as they are more likely to get a deal. When they initially went to get a deal they were told the bank weren't engaging and the only way was to stop paying the morgage. Seemed crazy. I don't resent them but do feel sorry for others struggling. There income was the same on half welfare but they could get some cash work so they were better off and the bank suddenly wanted to deal.

Were I do feel resentment is for some of the write offs for businesses. I employ 10 people with 3 kids and make not much more than I would if on welfare, true I have checked. I have a decent business but am saddled with debts I accured while securing my business premise in 2004. I can pay the morgage just but feels like all I am doing is working to pay off a huge morgage. I am not looking for sympathy or help I can do it and keep 10 people in work. However I now here of lots of Buisnesss having debts written off however I am told to do this I have to stop paying loans back. am I now competing with businesses with a lower cost base as they had write downs. Who is policing what businesses get write downs and which dont

Absolutely. No one who does not need nor does not deserve a rightdown should be getting one. If the system was more transparent then that might allay or dissuade many people's fears. But I feel that is not in the interests of the banks which leads to the conversations we're having here.

fliball123

maryishere wrote: »

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.

Sorry what you are talking about is a non-recourse loan which is secured against the proerty..All loans are recourse which means the debt lies with the individual..and these deals will actually help the bank classes (as you put it) as if they now have a performing loan their books look better and come bonus time they will be saying what a tremendous job they are doing...All the while mr tax payer is held down over a barrel, bent over and raped Pineapple style

Deise Vu

Ayla Most Sequel wrote: »

Don't want anyone punished - want the best return for the taxpayer. When a write off is given I would prefer to see a debt for equity swap. I think this would represent better value for the taxpayer.

(A) Any mortgage where there is a write-off has to be still in considerable negative equity after the write-off.
(B) The borrowers will be given a living allowance that approximates to the minimum wage. They will do this in the hope that values and their income will improve in the future.
(C) If you grind people into the ground entirely, they can shag off to England, come back debt free within a year and demand their 'entitlements' to a rent-subsidised house and social welfare that would be within pennies of what the bank are allowing as living expenses.
(D) Wholesale re-possessions and evictions from the family home will cause mayhem in the market and the bottom will fall out of existing values, further undermining the bank's securities. The evicted family are still the Taxpayers' problem.
(E) There is no fair solution to this problem caused by reckless borrowers, reckless lenders and non-existant regulation no more than it is fair to throw all sorts of benefits at people who aren't willing to work and just claim they can't find work, but we have to find a solution.

What part of this are you not understanding?

jay0109

Deise Vu wrote: »

(A) Any mortgage where there is a write-off has to be still in considerable negative equity after the write-off.
(B) The borrowers will be given a living allowance that approximates to the minimum wage. They will do this in the hope that values and their income will improve in the future.
(C) If you grind people into the ground entirely, they can shag off to England, come back debt free within a year and demand their 'entitlements' to a rent-subsidised house and social welfare that would be within pennies of what the bank are allowing as living expenses.
(D) Wholesale re-possessions and evictions from the family home will cause mayhem in the market and the bottom will fall out of existing values, further undermining the bank's securities. The evicted family are still the Taxpayers' problem.
(E) There is no fair solution to this problem caused by reckless borrowers, reckless lenders and non-existant regulation no more than it is fair to throw all sorts of benefits at people who aren't willing to work and just claim they can't find work, but we have to find a solution.

What part of this are you not understanding?

Have you seen the living allowances set down by the banks!!! It's a good few percentage points ahead of the base set by the Vincentian partnership (i think it was) that all have agreed to use.
The allowances provide for a better standard of living than that which I currently live by and I don't live particularly frugally! And my spending is recorded each month for the past few months so I know what I'm comparing against

And are you telling me that the 1st story that broke of the family in Dublin that had a 50%+ write off on their mortgage are still in negative equity on their revised deal. Just how far do you think house prices have fallen, esp in Dublin where there's quiet a rebound happening the past 2.5 years.
Where did you get this nugget from anyways?

Deise Vu

jay0109 wrote: »

Have you seen the living allowances set down by the banks!!! It's a good few percentage points ahead of the base set by the Vincentian partnership (i think it was) that all have agreed to use.
The allowances provide for a better standard of living than that which I currently live by and I don't live particularly frugally! And my spending is recorded each month for the past few months so I know what I'm comparing against

And are you telling me that the 1st story that broke of the family in Dublin that had a 50%+ write off on their mortgage are still in negative equity on their revised deal. Just how far do you think house prices have fallen, esp in Dublin where there's quiet a rebound happening the past 2.5 years.
Where did you get this nugget from anyways?

This is the problem with all the assumptions and 'Dúirt Bean Lioms' that passes for knowledge on this thread. In any of the articles I read it didn't even say it was a house. If I had to hazard a guess based on the original mortgage and current value I would guess it is a so-called 'starter' apartment. You know the ones: get on the first step of the property ladder and trade up before it's too late. There were gazillions of programmes on TV with smug presenters who knew everything about everything urging you to do this and implying you were a simpletion if you didn't. It's a pity most of these are dog boxes with malfunctioning management companies that you couldn't give away now.

I got the 'nugget' because I am a professional who has dealt with banks on refinancing and settlements. But you go ahead and find out what is really happening in your next taxi trip or from the fella on the next bar stool. Whatever you do don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

mjv2ydratu679c

Deise Vu wrote: »

(A) Any mortgage where there is a write-off has to be still in considerable negative equity after the write-off.
(B) The borrowers will be given a living allowance that approximates to the minimum wage. They will do this in the hope that values and their income will improve in the future.
(C) If you grind people into the ground entirely, they can shag off to England, come back debt free within a year and demand their 'entitlements' to a rent-subsidised house and social welfare that would be within pennies of what the bank are allowing as living expenses.
(D) Wholesale re-possessions and evictions from the family home will cause mayhem in the market and the bottom will fall out of existing values, further undermining the bank's securities. The evicted family are still the Taxpayers' problem.
(E) There is no fair solution to this problem caused by reckless borrowers, reckless lenders and non-existant regulation no more than it is fair to throw all sorts of benefits at people who aren't willing to work and just claim they can't find work, but we have to find a solution.

What part of this are you not understanding?

And what point there disproves that debt for equity swap would be a better return for the taxpayer?

Deise Vu

Ayla Most Sequel wrote: »

And what point there disproves that debt for equity swap would be a better return for the taxpayer?

(C)

maryishere

mrwhite2 wrote: »

Were I do feel resentment is for some of the write offs for businesses. I employ 10 people with 3 kids and make not much more than I would if on welfare, true I have checked. I have a decent business but am saddled with debts I accured while securing my business premise in 2004. I can pay the morgage just but feels like all I am doing is working to pay off a huge morgage. I am not looking for sympathy or help I can do it and keep 10 people in work. However I now here of lots of Buisnesss having debts written off however I am told to do this I have to stop paying loans back. am I now competing with businesses with a lower cost base as they had write downs. Who is policing what businesses get write downs and which dont

I doubt too many businesses are getting loans written off if the company can afford to pay them. If you have proof, you should maybe tell the bank, if it will protect jobs in your own business.
This is Ireland. I know business getting loads of grants from different state agencies most people have never heard of, and other businesses getting no grants. If you want to employ people in a fairer system, move up north or to England. Ireland is wink wink / who you know in the gaa or golf club or galway tent .

jay0109

Deise Vu wrote: »

This is the problem with all the assumptions and 'Dúirt Bean Lioms' that passes for knowledge on this thread. In any of the articles I read it didn't even say it was a house. If I had to hazard a guess based on the original mortgage and current value I would guess it is a so-called 'starter' apartment. You know the ones: get on the first step of the property ladder and trade up before it's too late. There were gazillions of programmes on TV with smug presenters who knew everything about everything urging you to do this and implying you were a simpletion if you didn't. It's a pity most of these are dog boxes with malfunctioning management companies that you couldn't give away now.

I got the 'nugget' because I am a professional who has dealt with banks on refinancing and settlements. But you go ahead and find out what is really happening in your next taxi trip or from the fella on the next bar stool. Whatever you do don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

so you diss my assumptions and then make some major ones yourself. Whatever bud

mjv2ydratu679c

Deise Vu wrote: »

(C)

And why is that? You offer people the chance to stay in their house by swapping some of their debt for equity. So a more attractive option for them is to go to the UK, declare bankruptcy, lose their house, lose any chance of ever getting a mortgage or car loan again and spend the rest of their lives renting in Ireland's dysfunctional rental market.

I think I'd take the debt for equity swap.

The part "I was not understanding" was why you had so many irrelevant points in your original reply.

groovyg

another article from the Indo, not sure if this is true but its hard to know since the banks are not disclosing anything about the deals being done.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/alls-fair-when-it-comes-to-love-war-and-nabbing-yourself-a-big-fat-writedown-30117091.html

on_my_oe

As commenters on the article say, she's ripped off taxpayers and scored herself €100,000 tax free at the cost of those who are paying their bills. It's especially those who are getting screwed over with higher rents while being kept out of the house market by unscrupulous sellers. The policy of no repossessions is a joke, and until some proper common sense is applied, Ireland will remain screwed

relax carry on

groovyg wrote: »

another article from the Indo, not sure if this is true but its hard to know since the banks are not disclosing anything about the deals being done.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/alls-fair-when-it-comes-to-love-war-and-nabbing-yourself-a-big-fat-writedown-30117091.html

That is a sickening article. Worst bit "I viewed my friend as the Rosa Parks of the banking crisis" Argggghhhhhh!

maryishere

on_my_oe wrote: »

As commenters on the article say, she's ripped off taxpayers and scored herself €100,000 tax free at the cost of those who are paying their bills.

Nobody is giving her €100,000. If the bank had refused her the loan in the beginning, on her ability to repay, then she would be better off than she is now. Of course then the bankers would not have made their commission and bonuses. The main ripping off as I see it is the bankers ( not the ordinary floor staff, but those who made the decisions ) who ripped off the shareholders, the taxpayer and the country by their reckless and shrewd activity from approx. 2002 to 2007, when they behave completely differently to other bankers before or since. The vast majority have kept their pay, lifestyles, pensions and bonuses.

on_my_oe

Where exactly do you think the €100,000 is going to come from? The taxpayers are ones who are on the hook for the money already contributed, and for any more required. If anyone is so stupid as to make an investment they can't afford, they should have it taken off them. If I buy shares and the value falls, the taxpayer doesn't reimburse me.

cookie1977

groovyg wrote: »

another article from the Indo, not sure if this is true but its hard to know since the banks are not disclosing anything about the deals being done.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/alls-fair-when-it-comes-to-love-war-and-nabbing-yourself-a-big-fat-writedown-30117091.html

I dont know whether this from the indo is more click bait then flame bait but either way it's disgusting on many levels.

Indo

Indo wrote:

The difference between her situation and some of the other writedown cases reported over the last week was that in my friend's case the writedown was largely strategic. This was not a 'family' home – in that she lives there alone – although it was her primary dwelling and not an investment property. She could still afford designer clothes, fine food, underfloor heating and two holidays a year.

I don't understand the point of this article...to make people angry?...wouldn't be surprised if he was talking about Alison O' Riordon.

I suppose, people with access to legal clout, i.e. the type of person who doesn't need debt forgiveness, are going to do quite well out of all this I reckon.

maryishere

on_my_oe wrote: »

Where exactly do you think the €100,000 is going to come from? The taxpayers are ones who are on the hook for the money already contributed,

but we should not be. Two wrongs do not make a right. Time some of the bankers who made the wrong decisions took some pain, instead of bonuses.

Villa05

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/people-with-huge-debts-most-likely-to-get-writedown-30117084.html

COUPLES in mortgage distress who borrowed big – paying "top dollar" for family homes and are now deepest in negative equity – have the best chance of securing a writedown from the banks, the Sunday Independent has learned....

However, this means couples deep in debt but whose homes are still in positive equity will not get a write-down and face the nightmare prospect of losing their family residence

It seem like evolution in reverse,

Those that were sensible suffer the most and pick up the bill, while those that took the largest risk and lost get the loot

Caoimhe Ni Laighin and her son have been given notice and she just can't afford a decent place to live in Dublin
Caoimhe Ni Laighin is a journalist with Nuacht and TG4

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/rent-crisis-means-that-aged-34-im-off-home-to-live-with-mum-30117083.html

maryishere

Villa05 wrote: »

It seem like evolution in reverse,

Those that were sensible suffer the most and pick up the bill, while those that took the largest risk and lost get the loot

I agree : bankers that were sensible are worse off than rogue bankers that took the largest risk (eg lent people 10 and 20 times their income, knowing it would never be paid back ) and these same well paid and pensioned rogue bankers kept their bonuses and commission on unsustainable loans.

Zamboni

maryishere wrote: »

but we should not be. Two wrongs do not make a right. Time some of the bankers who made the wrong decisions took some pain, instead of bonuses.

Mary

The bankers and banks are not being punished by these writedowns from AIB.
WE ARE.
The bankers are laughing!!!
I mean, come on!

kefir32

I would love to get accurate information on what clauses (if any) the bank put in place if the said debt write down mortgaged properties are sold for higher at a future date. Anyone got anything credible other than rag indo?:cool:

The_Morrigan

maryishere wrote: »

I agree : bankers that were sensible are worse off than rogue bankers that took the largest risk (eg lent people 10 and 20 times their income, knowing it would never be paid back ) and these same well paid and pensioned rogue bankers kept their bonuses and commission on unsustainable loans.

It also works this way....

Borrowers that were sensible are worse off than rogue borrowers that took the largest risk (eg borrowed 10 and 20 times their income, knowing it would never be paid back ) and these same rogue borrowers get debt write downs and keep their houses.

Developers that were sensible are worse off than rogue developers that took the largest risk (eg borrowed 10 and 20 times their income, knowing it would never be paid back) and these same rogue developers get debt write downs, transfer some assets to their wives & children and keep their houses.

Mary it is not entirely the fault of the banks and their staff, if you can't understand that you can't have a proper debate on the subject.
Coming in here all guns blazing towards one faction of industry is not acceptable. There are very few bankers who got commission on mortgages - I know it never happened in the retail bank I worked for years ago, the only 'bonus' we got was shares in the company that we couldn't sell on for five years (at that point any boom time bonuses were wiped out by the crash) - there were no cash bonuses for staff under executive level and the executives had nothing to do with the day to day banking, so they didn't approve any lending.

jay0109

kefir32 wrote: »

I would love to get accurate information on what clauses (if any) the bank put in place if the said debt write down mortgaged properties are sold for higher at a future date. Anyone got anything credible other than rag indo?:cool:

the 1st story that broke about the 150k write off from AIB for the Dublin family....David Hall said it was 100% unconditional and that if the family's circumstances improved in the future or house values went up, the bank had no comeback at them.
I expect all AIB deals are like this

jay0109

cookie1977 wrote: »

I dont know whether this from the indo is more click bait then flame bait but either way it's disgusting on many levels.

And are you surprised
People have been posting on here for months now saying there was going to be cases like this (I personally reckon there'll be a high percentage) and you and a few others were saying that debt forgiveness was the way forward and that those against it belonged to the flog and hang 'em brigade.
This is Ireland...there was a mess made on the way up and by God, there'll be an even bigger mess made on the way down

The_Morrigan

jay0109 wrote: »

the 1st story that broke about the 150k write off from AIB for the Dublin family....David Hall said it was 100% unconditional and that if the family's circumstances improved in the future or house values went up, the bank had no comeback at them.
I expect all AIB deals are like this

I would say that is pure speculation to be honest, privity of contract would ensure that each agreement is not public knowledge and the banks won't publicise anything like that as there could be an influx of appeals looking for the same terms.