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

yosser hughes

green_screen wrote: »

Ah sure, let's just take the houses from them and leave them homeless, probably costing the taxpayer even more to rehome them.

People made mistakes, big fcuking deal. I'd rather my taxes go towards housing somebody /keeping them in their home, than on the numerous people I know defrauding the social welfare.

No, they can go and rent instead and a family that was prudent and can afford to make payments can buy the house.
What differentiates these people from people who want to buy a home but are renting right now? They can't afford to buy a home because people like these are being allowed to stay in a house they can't afford.
All this being trumpeted by an ex Fianna Failer (David Hall) and a giddy media with zero transparency.
This is a mess.

username123

Naux wrote: »

For us to get out of this mess Banks will have to deal with all people in difficulty eventually.

Then strategic default would appear to be the way forward. Fall so far into arrears that catching up on your salary is impossible, keep every penny you don't pay off your mortgage under the bed or spend it having fun.

stevedublin

ArraMusha wrote: »

I must ring AIB for a Mortgage later and get as big an amount as I can get, seeing as they're writing off big chunks.

okay so, why are you telling us this?

Sleepy

I really don't see how a double-income family can't pay a 400k mortgage. If there's a tracker in place, it'd be about €1,500 a month, pretty much the same as rent for a 3 bed in Dublin.

Wonder is one of the jobs a vanity position? Or is their spending simply as extravagant as the credit card debts suggest?

OldNotWIse

Sleepy wrote: »

I really don't see how a double-income family can't pay a 400k mortgage. If there's a tracker in place, it'd be about €1,500 a month, pretty much the same as rent for a 3 bed in Dublin.

Wonder is one of the jobs a vanity position? Or is their spending simply as extravagant as the credit card debts suggest?

Childcare. Its about 17,000 a week now, did you not know that?

fliball123

This is going to cause a snowball effect..Why would anyone currently paying a mortgage in neg equity continue to pay ..When they can go now and get loans from each bank, the credit union and the post office..get a few credit cards and max them out and just stop paying their mortgage...There is a high chance they will get offered a deal from this...

To use a phrase from the banks..If they give a write down it crystallizes the losses..but the loss is on the tax payer..and if that tax payer is paying a mortgage they will soon have the expense of paying for water on top of everything else to cover all debts by people who where never brought to task or punitively dealt with..Weather that was a bondholder who gambled and should of lost or the property speculator (and first time buyers and home owners are included in this as any property purchase is a gamble) who gambled and now find themselves in neg equity will be bailed out.

Add in a bloated semi state/public service and pensions in operation aswell as an out of kilter social welfare bill..the tax payer has a noose over its head for the next 2/3 decades at least unless some punitive actions come into place for the myriad of the me-entitlement culture that is now rampant in this country..

Politicians need to grow a pair starting with Aer Lingus strikes this weekend..Pay extra and bring in scabs from other countries..cut down the power of the unions and the tell them to phuck right off.

Sorry for spiraling but my blood boils when I realise that I am a man in my late 30s I have a mortgage to pay and a child to pay for and I am not only paying for my lifestyle but the lifestyle of the rich and the poor who think the tax payer is the cow that just keeps on giving..Also to further that my 3 year old son is already in hock for the billions and billions that were borrowed by this country and will be in stook for the rest of his life as well...

Ireland Inc what a phucking country.

jmayo

I think this whole saga just illustrates my point that the kids of today and adults of tomorrow need to learn in order to succeed in good old Ireland.

For any teenagers/kids out there I think there a few things that guidance counsellors are not telling you that you need to know to succeed in this country.
The kids of the clued in current generation already know these things so time to play catch up.

1. Borrow as much as you can at every opportunity. The more you owe the more willing the bank(s) is to spread the pain and let you off if things turn pear shaped.

2. Study something that will eventually allow you get a managerial role within public body, bank or better still a charitable organisation. Hell it can even be accountancy, IT, whatever but just get in the path to riches, no responsibility and cushy pension.
All the better if you are politically connected. (see point 3)

3. Join one of the bigger political parties, try and smooze with the ones destined for the top and you can hang off their coattails.
Yes I know it is ar**licking, but you better get used to it.
It is what will make you a success.
This will help with point 1 and various other little things that will crop over your lifetime which would cause problems for other normal folk out there.

4. Make friends with a garda that is destined for promotion.
You will need a future inspector or superintendant, otherwise not worth it.
Maybe local GAA club is the way to go for this.
Yes it is more ar**licking, but it will pay off when you or your kin are caught for the umteenth time breaking a speedlimit.

5. Never accept responsibility for anything negative, but be quick to garner the plaudits. Remember shít flows downwards.

6. Remember ethics, morals and responsibility are for losers.

7. Practice acting remorsefully just in case brazening it out doesn't work if and when you get caught out.

I would gladly welcome others to contribute to this as I am only an amateur at this as I have for too long believed in ethics, responsibility, etc.

D3PO

ferike1 wrote: »

Most people under a certain age get zero benefit from this.

. So we are paying increased taxes to bail out the banks and now we are bailing out private householders too?

Nobody but the family concerned gets benefit from this. Why do you think only people of a certain age are being discriminated against ?

As for bailing out private householders your not. The banks bailout was done with the understanding that in providing liquidity to them part of this could be used to writedown bad debts....

Nobody on here thinks its particularly fair that certain individuals will get deals and others wont but the point is people arent thinking logically and are jsut up in arms over the "morality" of the situation as opposed to looking at the logic of it.

Dont bail out the couple. Let the bank repo let the couple enter a PIA or go bankrupt. End result bank is worse off than going with the debt writedown....

Banks are ultimately commercial entties and as such have to make the best commercial decisions they can. Its not about anything other than that. People need to stop personalising things and look at the overall picture.

FWIW I bought in 2005 am in NE, dont believe its fair that somebody has basically been handed 150k tax free BUT I realise the reasoning behind it and as such accept it for what it is a good business decision by AIB.

Ultimatly good commerical decisions taken by them benefit me as when the inevitable selloff happens their clean balance sheet will increase their value. Their increased value means a bigger return for the eqchequer which then means all the citizens of the country will see the trickledown benefit of this.

D3PO

fliball123 wrote: »

This is going to cause a snowball effect..Why would anyone currently paying a mortgage in neg equity continue to pay ..When they can go now and get loans from each bank, the credit union and the post office..get a few credit cards and max them out and just stop paying their mortgage...There is a high chance they will get offered a deal from this...

.

Anybody who thinks its that simplictic is foolish. Banks will not ever do deals with strategic defaulters. Its irresponsible even in jest to say the above.

Michael54321

I think its only right that this debt got written down. The economy will never recover while large groups of people have no spending power at all.
Also the couple in question have 2 children, their quality of life has to be considered, do we want children growing up in poverty or should all children be equal.
10 Years ago there was serious pressure on everyone to get on the property ladder with houses going up overnight if you did not buy today. People who bought then should not have a life sentence. Also the banks have had it written off, why not pass this along to the mortgage holder ?
I wish that family well and hope they can now get on with their lives

fliball123

D3PO wrote: »

Nobody but the family concerns gets benefit from this. Why do you think only people of a certain age are being discriminated against ?

As for bailing out private householders your not. The banks bailout was done with the understanding that in providing liquidity to them part of this could be used to writedown bad debts....

Nobody on here thinks its particularly fair that certain individuals will get deals and others wont but the point is people arent thinking logically and are jsut up in arms over the "morality" of the situation as opposed to looking at the logic of it.

Dont bail out the couple. Let the bank repo let the couple enter a PIA or go bankrupt. End result bank is worse off than going with the debt writedown....

Banks are ultimately commercial entties and as such have to make the best commercial decisions they can. Its not about anything other than that. People need to stop personalising things and look at the overall picture.

FWIW I bought in 2005 am in NE, dont believe its fair that somebody has basically been handed 150k tax free BUT I realise the reasoning behind it and as such accept it for what it is a good business decision by AIB.

Ultimatly good commerical decisions taken by them benefit me as when the inevitable selloff happens their clean balance sheet will increase their value. Their increased value means a bigger return for the eqchequer which then means all the citizens of the country will see the trickledown benefit of this.

This bank is owned by the tax payer and its not a once off and sets a precedent that can now be looked at by anyone who decides they want to party and leave the bill with the tax payer..The government need to bring in legislation that if someone goes bankrupt abroad that if they ever start earning again in ireland they should have an additional tax on that earnings for phucking over the tax payer. This is going to go horribly wrong..I would hazard a guess we will be pumping more cash into the banks by the end of 2015

fliball123

D3PO wrote: »

Anybody who thinks its that simplictic is foolish. Banks will not ever do deals with strategic defaulters. Its irresponsible even in jest to say the above.

Does not mean they wont try..Remember what will they do if they just phuck off to England and declare bankrupcy? There are people who have ways and means to do so...Also does it look like I am jesting... Why should people pay there way and act responsibly when they now have a precedent set that will allow them to party for a few years , get a deal to write off this partying and then stay in the house...

fliball123

Michael54321 wrote: »

I think its only right that this debt got written down. The economy will never recover while large groups of people have no spending power at all.
Also the couple in question have 2 children, their quality of life has to be considered, do we want children growing up in poverty or should all children be equal.
10 Years ago there was serious pressure on everyone to get on the property ladder with houses going up overnight if you did not buy today. People who bought then should not have a life sentence. Also the banks have had it written off, why not pass this along to the mortgage holder ?
I wish that family well and hope they can now get on with their lives

how does taking cash from one set of people (the tax payer) and giving it to another set (the people in neg equity properties) help the ecconomy recover? Its the auld debt switcheroo..its still there the tax payer just has to pay for it..So they have to pay more taxes which depresses the economy aswell its not like this write off is money taken from the magical money tree out the back of AIBs head quarters

Zamboni

D3PO wrote: »

Dont bail out the couple. Let the bank repo let the couple enter a PIA or go bankrupt. End result bank is worse off than going with the debt writedown....

This is speculation and I'd like to see actual figures to see if it is justified on behalf of the taxpayer.
Average costs of repossessing a property would be a start.

OldNotWIse

Michael54321 wrote: »

I think its only right that this debt got written down. The economy will never recover while large groups of people have no spending power at all.
Also the couple in question have 2 children, their quality of life has to be considered, do we want children growing up in poverty or should all children be equal.
10 Years ago there was serious pressure on everyone to get on the property ladder with houses going up overnight if you did not buy today. People who bought then should not have a life sentence. Also the banks have had it written off, why not pass this along to the mortgage holder ?
I wish that family well and hope they can now get on with their lives

I have no spending power by the time I pay rent and mortgage. Can I have 150k to boost the economy?

Also, why should people get preferential treatment because they have procreated? Plenty of people would love big familes but stop at one because kids are expensive.

D3PO

fliball123 wrote: »

Does not mean they wont try..Remember what will they do if they just phuck off to England and declare bankrupcy? There are people who have ways and means to do so...Also does it look like I am jesting... Why should people pay there way and act responsibly when they now have a precedent set that will allow them to party for a few years , get a deal to write off this partying and then stay in the house...

People that have the ways and means to do so as you put it wont in anyway have made a decision to do so based on this one case. If its something they are/were going to do they would do it anyway.

If somebody wants to jack in their job, move country and press the reset button then thats their perogative but for the normal man and woman thats not a realistic or palatable proposition.

will it and has it happened of course. Regardless of whatever process or legislation you put forward there will always be somebody who tests the boundaries of it but you cannot argue things based on exception rather than the rule.

your argument about precent is ludacris, this isnt a court of law precednt doesnt exist the bank will do the best thing for themselves. Sometimes that will be repo sometimes that may be similar to whats happened with this couple.

The fact is NONE of us know the exact deal that was struck, non of us eknow what provisions were included in the deal, what clawbacks may or may not exist and so on.

If people read the news and take the headlines as gospel they are sorely mistaken, I can assure you the bank havent rolled over here and got the best deal they could given the individual circumstances of the case.

Dublin_Mom

smcgiff wrote: »

Was waiting for these type of comments. Boards.ie you never disappoint.

To be honest I think this is the general public sentiment, based on what I have heard on talk shows and by talking to people IRL today.

Very dangerous precedent IMO, very reckless move by AIB

ferike1

D3PO wrote: »

Nobody but the family concerned gets benefit from this. Why do you think only people of a certain age are being discriminated against ?

Ultimatly good commerical decisions taken by them benefit me as when the inevitable selloff happens their clean balance sheet will increase their value. Their increased value means a bigger return for the eqchequer which then means all the citizens of the country will see the trickledown benefit of this.

I just mean that people of a certain age who have entered the workforce probably don't have NE or massive debts and are therefore not the people who caused this but are expected to make sacrifices (whether they like it or not) to subsidize someone else's lifestyle.

And this big selloff? I'll believe it when I see it, it's going to come in little drops so the house prices stay artificially high and first time buyers won't actually get the proper market price.

I also disagree there will be trickle down benefits. The banks will pass on the write-offs via increased fees/charges or mortgage rates to those who can afford it and all that will do is reduce the spending of people like me. The money has to come from somewhere. It's like the health levies. The GVT makes the insurers pay who pass on the costs to us.

Dublin_Mom

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Childcare. Its about 17,000 a week now, did you not know that?

And most of us (unfortunately not all) plan how many kids we can afford to have and put into childcare, Its called planning for your future...and thinking beyond tomorrow

ArraMusha

stevedublin wrote: »

okay so, why are you telling us this?

I'm telling you I'm getting on to AIB as this is shocking and I'll be letting them know this. It's up to you how you fell about that.

D3PO

Zamboni wrote: »

This is speculation and I'd like to see actual figures to see if it is justified on behalf of the taxpayer.
Average costs of repossessing a property would be a start.

Your right it is speculation, but at least theres a basis behind it.

Data protection at times is a right pain in the ass. I think we would all love to know the exact facts and figures so independant review of the deal could be made unfortunatly we dont have it.

Coupled in with knowing how much a repo may cost and the additonal cost the taxpayer may have to bear in social welfare payments as a result of the repo would make this a very straight forward discussion in terms of a CBA.

D3PO

ferike1 wrote: »

And this big selloff? I'll believe it when I see it, it's going to come in little drops so the house prices stay artificially high and first time buyers won't actually get the proper market price.

I also disagree there will be trickle down benefits. The banks will pass on the write-offs via increased fees/charges or mortgage rates to those who can afford it and all that will do is reduce the spending of people like me.

The selloff I refer to is the government unwinding its position as defacto owner of AIB not a property selloff.

Makes your whole point irrelevent as your responding to something that wasnt said .....

Zamboni

D3PO wrote: »

Your right it is speculation, but at least theres a basis behind it.

Data protection at times is a right pain in the ass. I think we would all love to know the exact facts and figures so independant review of the deal could be made unfortunatly we dont have it.

Coupled in with knowing how much a repo may cost and the additonal cost the taxpayer may have to bear in social welfare payments as a result of the repo would make this a very straight forward discussion in terms of a CBA.

I'm talking about the general cost of a repossession, not this case specifically. So DP should not come into it.
DP should be waived for any debt write down in a state owned bank.

Nobody will ever carry out that kind of CBA in a bank or the Dept.
That kind of big picture thinking does not exist outside of universities or bored boardsies.

ferike1

Fine, fair enough, the first point is moot. We were talking about different things.
I still doubt the GVT will recoup the amounts pumped into AIB/BOI. Standard bailout theory dictates that even breaking even would be a huge achievement.


The second point still stands though. If the banks make losses on the loans they write off, who do you think will pay for that? You stated they are commercial entities, so as commercial entities they will just go, ah sure, guys its okay, we'll just absorb those losses and not change a thing to our rates and charges.

D3PO

It must be easy enough to find out the general cost of reposession Im sure ?

Re CBA's Id be very surprised if the bank didnt do a CBA on this deal prior to offerening it to the family in question. Maybe Im nieve in that regard but it would be a bigger scandel in my eyes than offering the writedown at all !!

fliball123

D3PO wrote: »

People that have the ways and means to do so as you put it wont in anyway have made a decision to do so based on this one case. If its something they are/were going to do they would do it anyway.

If somebody wants to jack in their job, move country and press the reset button then thats their perogative but for the normal man and woman thats not a realistic or palatable proposition.

will it and has it happened of course. Regardless of whatever process or legislation you put forward there will always be somebody who tests the boundaries of it but you cannot argue things based on exception rather than the rule.

your argument about precent is ludacris, this isnt a court of law precednt doesnt exist the bank will do the best thing for themselves. Sometimes that will be repo sometimes that may be similar to whats happened with this couple.

The fact is NONE of us know the exact deal that was struck, non of us eknow what provisions were included in the deal, what clawbacks may or may not exist and so on.

If people read the news and take the headlines as gospel they are sorely mistaken, I can assure you the bank havent rolled over here and got the best deal they could given the individual circumstances of the case.

The problem there is they can now prepare for it..a nice 6 months to a year of ignoring the banks letters that they have not paid the mortgage..in the mean time..get a few loans out from differing banks and institutions and max out a few credit cards...When the **** hits the fan they will point at the massive other non-mortgage debts and decide to give a deal or they can give the keys back .... The bank should of repossessed it may be a short term loss (although theoretically the remaining debt should remain with the couple) in order to warn others who try some shenanigans at least they know the property will be gone and the debt will remain with them.

Ash.J.Williams

It's very unfair ....i don't begrudge the couple, but they are better off than me now and i didn't buy a house.

D3PO

ferike1 wrote: »

Fine, fair enough, the first point is moot. We were talking about different things.
I still doubt the GVT will recoup the amounts pumped into AIB/BOI. Standard bailout theory dictates that even breaking even would be a huge achievement.


The second point still stands though. If the banks make losses on the loans they write off, who do you think will pay for that? You stated they are commercial entities, so as commercial entities they will just go, ah sure, guys its okay, we'll just absorb those losses and not change a thing to our rates and charges.

Im not arguing they will recoup it all certainly not. However the process of cleaning up the balance sheets will in a large part be offset by future gains when unwinding their position.

Functional banks and international perception of the housing arrears crisis weather its just a paper cleanup or not will also have the rating agencies swoon re Ireland Inc. Meaning cheaper bond sales for the NTMA.

re the second point they are already recouping these losses with all the BS bank charges they are making us pay, they have been doing so for a few years now prior to these writeoffs so its not something thats direclty dictated to the writeoffs but the overall shoddy financial position they find themselves in.

weather they repo or writeoff they will take a hit (in the most part) so as such the recouping of these losses will happen regardless.

The point Im making is that whilst at an individual level a lot of these things can be seen as a negative they have positive knock on effects for the banks and governments and weather we like it or not the mess we are in will not be fixed until the coutry and its financial infrastructure are fixed.

some people win and some people will lose. Its not fair (I pay a heap of tax I never miss a mortgage payment I didnt over extend myself in the boom) but cest la vie we cant turn back the clock and have to deal wirth the here and now as fair or unfair as it is.

Michael54321

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I have no spending power by the time I pay rent and mortgage. Can I have 150k to boost the economy?

Also, why should people get preferential treatment because they have procreated? Plenty of people would love big familes but stop at one because kids are expensive.

People made sound decisions at the time based on their wages. The banks looked at the house price and the couple's wages and agreed to lend them the money based on those figures. If the couple have taken big wage cuts like most of us or taken jobs with much lower wages then they cannot be expected to keep up repayments based on their high wages.
If they were evicted how much would it cost for the local authority to house them, I would say it was a cheaper option on the tax payer to write off the 150k.
As regards the kids, they are there now, you can't give them back, so what's your point ? should they be thrown out on the street of given some standard of living ?.

Ash.J.Williams

I guess that's it, during the boom people who would have failed the mortgage criteria got mortgages and are failing to them back as would be expected.