Bankers May Not Be Nice People

Fr Tod Umptious

server down wrote: »

Well the banks have my money and dont seem to be in a rush to pay it back, and when they do I expect that it won't get me a great big check, though I am told I am a shareholder in said banks.

I dont think we know enough about the OP's situation really. He was more upset so it seemed about the lack of notification, it looks like people are not taking that seriously.

But as other have said there is likely more too it than the OP is telling us

I'd be slow to take the "lack of notification" story at face value.

Ubbquittious

Ubbquittious wrote: »

People defending the banks.. tiger definitely back

It's hardly defending the banks showing where the OP is being unreasonable. If anything the OPs attitude is more an indication of the Tiger being back.

bajer101

GingerLily wrote: »

The bank sent you letters, did you ignore them?

I also got stung in a similar fashion many moons ago, never thought to blame the bank for the situation! How stupid of me.

OP here. I haven't had a chance to read all replies yet, but this one stands out so far as it is germane to my main problem with this. I did not receive any notification. No letter, email, text message or in app message. I had my overdraft facility removed and my current account cancelled with absolutely no notification. They have since said that I was sent a letter at the end of Sept informing me of this, but I most definitely did not receive any such communication. They still managed to accept a deposit of a couple of grand into the account though.

bajer101

GingerLily wrote: »

He did, he didn't read them, and didn't read that they were revoking his overdraft which would have been in a condition of one of the contracts he signed.

Eh, no I didn't. That's my point. I received two notifications advising that my loan was in arrears. I did not receive any communication stating that my current account or overdraft was in danger or even linked to my loan account. I had my overdraft facility removed and my current account and debit card cancelled with absolutely no warning. I had actually been on the phone to them a couple of times enquiring why my overdraft facility was removed and they still didn't tell me that my whole account and card were cancelled. It took a visit to a restaurant in Liffey Valley to discover that;

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

I did not receive any notification. No letter, email, text message or in app message. I had my overdraft facility removed and my current account cancelled with absolutely no notification.

bajer101 wrote: »

Eh, no I didn't. That's my point. I received two notifications advising that my loan was in arrears. I did not receive any communication stating that my current account or overdraft was in danger or even linked to my loan account.

So you did receive notification about your loan arrears...but you wanted them to specify the implications for other credit facilities?

Presumably that's in the terms and conditions of the overdraft facility, which may simply provide that where other accounts are in arrears they have the right to suspend all credit facilities. Think you should go back and check that. If that's what you signed up to, that's kinda the end of it.

bajer101

fxotoole wrote: »

Definitely more to this story than you're letting on OP. Staff working in a bank, particularly assistant managers are professionals. They wouldn't just refuse a customer access to their funds without damn good reasons.

No. The teller got the assistant manager and he told me that he was not authorised to give me my money as my account had been passed on to what is obviously the debt arm of the bank. He initially said that he couldn't contact them as they seemed to be off that day due to Ophelia. I asked him to try again as he was refusing me access to my money which was in a separate account. He came back two minutes later and approved the withdrawal. I don't think he got through to the debt team, I think he just made a call.

STB.

Deleted User wrote: »

People defending the attitude that one can spend spend spend other peoples money and just not pay it back, but still want to hang on to the asset they used the money on...oh and expect that they should still get access to even more credit facilities.

That sounds very like Anglo Irish Bank you are describing Conor. The taxpayer will be paying for generations to come.

Sounds like in the OPs case, that the bank have limited his access to banking facilities such as cards and o/d as the loan account has went into arrears. It also sounds like they did not follow the correct procedures before taking that option, otherwise he would have not been allowed withdraw a balance on his current account.

Make no mistake, bankers are not nice people. The lessons of the past have quite clearly not been learned. As long as we have a regulator with no clout, we will continue to see sharp practice like the current debacle of illegaly moving people off tracker mortgages to further the profits of the bank and then owning up to it, without any obvious penalties and without anyone going to jail. They can pay the money back, their can be minimalistic penalties, but those that took that stress to the grave with them can never be repaid.

Ulysses Gaze

STB. wrote: »

That sounds very like Anglo Irish Bank you are describing Conor. The taxpayer will be paying for generations to come.

Sounds like in the OPs case, that the bank have limited his access to banking facilities such as cards and o/d as the loan account has went into arrears. It also sounds like they did not follow the correct procedures before taking that option, otherwise he would have not been allowed withdraw a balance on his current account.

Make no mistake, bankers are not nice people. The lessons of the past have quite clearly not been learned. As long as we have a regulator with no clout, we will continue to see sharp practice like the current debacle of illegaly moving people off tracker mortgages to further the profits of the bank and then owning up to it, without any obvious penalties and without anyone going to jail. They can pay the money back, their can be minimalistic penalties, but those that took that stress to the grave with them can never be repaid.

Until either a) The banks are hammered with monstrous fines by the regulator for sharp practice or b) A class action suit is taken and won against one of the major banks (cough AIB) for overcharging or other sharp practice and they are also hit with monstrous settlements or c) everyone moves their money out of Banks and into bitcoin or cryptocurrencies (which will not happen) then sharp practices will continue.

And even if they have to pay out huge sums in fines, guess who will be paying for it in increased charges...

As George Carlin so eloquently put it.

"They got you by the balls!"

Geuze

bajer101 wrote: »

There was a moment there in the branch, where the assistant manager was refusing to give me my money.

Similar to how you didn't give them back their money.

server down

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you did receive notification about your loan arrears...but you wanted them to specify the implications for other credit facilities?

Presumably that's in the terms and conditions of the overdraft facility, which may simply provide that where other accounts are in arrears they have the right to suspend all credit facilities. Think you should go back and check that. If that's what you signed up to, that's kinda the end of it.

Nope. Looked up the regulations on this and at least in the UK the bank has to inform you if it closing your account by giving you specific notice - 30 days unless the account has restricted access in which case you need to give more.

Otherwise the bank is responsible for your financial losses in that period.

Fr Tod Umptious

server down wrote: »

Nope. Looked up the regulations on this and at least in the UK the bank has to inform you if it closing your account by giving you specific notice - 30 days unless the account has restricted access in which case you need to give more.

Otherwise the bank is responsible for your financial losses in that period.

And what part of the UK is this ?

Colonel Claptrap

server down wrote: »

Nope. Looked up the regulations on this and at least in the UK the bank has to inform you if it closing your account by giving you specific notice - 30 days unless the account has restricted access in which case you need to give more.

Otherwise the bank is responsible for your financial losses in that period.

Was your account closed or frozen?

server down

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And what part of the UK is this ?

I know that genius. That’s what came up but do your own searching. It’s hardly going to be that different.

server down

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Was your account closed or frozen?

Neither. Nothing happened to my account.

sbsquarepants

bajer101 wrote: »

No. The teller got the assistant manager and he told me that he was not authorised to give me my money as my account had been passed on to what is obviously the debt arm of the bank. He initially said that he couldn't contact them as they seemed to be off that day due to Ophelia. I asked him to try again as he was refusing me access to my money which was in a separate account. He came back two minutes later and approved the withdrawal. I don't think he got through to the debt team, I think he just made a call.

Did they give you the whole amount - did they take out some to cover missed payments or what?

To clarify my own position - I'm with you insofar as banks are not nice people - globally they are certainly led by sociopathic thieving bastards of the highest order. But I still can't see your point - you took their money, didn't pay it back (presumably because you didn't have it at the time, which it's hard to do anything about in fairness) but then when you did get the means to pay it back, you didn't - your first thought was a spending spree.

If you had loaned me money, and I behaved that way - would you think that was perfectly fine?

I'd fully expect a kick in the nuts for doing that, which is what I'd give you if you done it to me!

Why exactly do you think you don't have to pay back the money you've borrowed?

I know you don't want to - I don't want to pay back my loans either, but I also don't get on my high horse about them taking back money I agreed to give them.

I honestly can't understand why you are?

It should also be remembered that at common law, even with nothing specified, lenders have the right to set off accounts against each other, though it must be the same borrower and afaik the same type account. But usually terms and conditions extend this right across more facilities. I think the borrower would have to at least analyse the terms and conditions of the overdraft, and then the requirements of the Central Bank and notification.

El Tarangu

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Until either a) The banks are hammered with monstrous fines by the regulator for sharp practice or b) A class action suit is taken and won against one of the major banks (cough AIB) for overcharging or other sharp practice and they are also hit with monstrous settlements or c) everyone moves their money out of Banks and into bitcoin or cryptocurrencies (which will not happen) then sharp practices will continue.

And even if they have to pay out huge sums in fines, guess who will be paying for it in increased charges...

As George Carlin so eloquently put it.

"They got you by the balls!"

When everyone moves to bitcoin and what have you, will people no longer have to repay loans at the agreed schedule of repayment?

weldoninhio

I used to work for a bank. I despised working there due to management and some customers. People like the OP were the worst to deal with. No concept of personal responsibility at all. I also don’t believe that there was no correspondence.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

A Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Ah the good old Celtic Tiger. Sure it's all the banks fault I can't pay for all these loans I took out. I just want to go on a shopping spree with my daughter...

That was one of the things that annoyed me in the aftermath of the Celtic Tiger. People who had taken out massive loans or lived on credit so that they could have six holidays a year, designer handbags, top of the range cars and whatever else was necessary to keep up with the Joneses were trying to put themselves in the same bracket as people struggling to pay mortgages on ordinary houses in ordinary areas.
And now that the economy is improving you can just sense these same people, back on the blocks waiting to take off and start overspending right, left and centre on non essentials and strutting around as if they're millionaires.

mariaalice

Brock Creamy Accelerator wrote: »

That was one of the things that annoyed me in the aftermath of the Celtic Tiger. People who had taken out massive loans or lived on credit so that they could have six holidays a year, designer handbags, top of the range cars and whatever else was necessary to keep up with the Joneses were trying to put themselves in the same bracket as people struggling to pay mortgages on ordinary houses in ordinary areas.
And now that the economy is improving you can just sense these same people, back on the blocks waiting to take off and start overspending right, left and centre on non essentials and strutting around as if they're millionaires.

I don't know never meet anyone who went mad during the Celtic tiger the closes was a someone I use to work with who had the BMW and the sister of someone I knew however both of them seemed to have issue about their background. The vast majority did not and do not go mad its just that people behaving normally doesn't make headline....people got mortgage, paid mortgage, and now have house just isn't exiting enough.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

I regularly had the bank ringing me to ask me if I'd like a loan of a few thousand to buy myself something nice like a car or a holiday. I had the sense to say 'no', but an awful lot of people didn't and then blamed the bank for giving them the loan in the first place. Yes, it was irresponsible of the banks but no one was forcing anyone to take a loan that they didn't need.

And I knew people who were up to their neck in credit, and who were living a high life eating out in fancy restaurants, going off on holidays, getting the house done up etc etc

Some people really did go a bit mad and were then shocked and bewildered when it all came crashing down and they realised they actually had to pay all the money back.

Ash.J.Williams

Jayop wrote: »

Your last paragraph is absolutely the biggest puke posted here in ages.

People should pay their bills but if you can't differentiate between someone who loses their job and can't pay a mortgage that they only got because the bank threw it at them and a rich banker who invents a ponzi scheme or acts like our banks acted in the boom years, or acts with the utter callousness of our banks screwing people who signed up to one loan and forcing them to a variable and then hang themselves.

**** them. Scum. Someone missing a loan repayment isn't even in the same category, but you're that brainwashed by your right wing leaders you think they're worse. Wake up.

You shouldn't accept a loan of half a million if a bank throws it at you

sbsquarepants

Brock Creamy Accelerator wrote: »

I regularly had the bank ringing me to ask me if I'd like a loan of a few thousand to buy myself something nice like a car or a holiday. I had the sense to say 'no', but an awful lot of people didn't and then blamed the bank for giving them the loan in the first place. Yes, it was irresponsible of the banks but no one was forcing anyone to take a loan that they didn't need.
.

I was actually refused a car loan once because I wanted to borrow 8 grand I think it was and the bank wanted me to take 15.
I went to a different bank and got the 8 - why the hell would I want to borrow 7 grand I don't need!

tritium

Akrasia wrote: »

A ludicrous amount of a bank's profit is made up of fees and charges. (up to 40% )

It used to be that people got paid for services they provide. Now banks get rich from creaming charges and penalties off the top of people trying to make ends meet.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/21/the-crazy-growth-of-bank-fees.html

You do realise that the feea and charges are the banks way of getting paid for the services they provide right?

GrumpyMe

sbsquarepants wrote: »

- why the hell would I want to borrow 7 grand I don't need!

So the "seller"would hit his/her target for that day, week, month, QTR, year...

tara73

GingerLily wrote: »

I don't believe the OP wasn't informed, if he wasn't he may have a case for the omnibusman.

was this on purpose or ...not..?? It's so funny, it made my evening. the omnibusman..:pac::pac::pac::pac:

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

You shouldn't accept a loan of half a million if a bank throws it at you

The bank should have looked at the financial state of the customer first and if their ability to repay a loan was in question no such offer should have been made.

maryishere

Deleted User wrote: »

The bank should have looked at the financial state of the customer first and if their ability to repay a loan was in question no such offer should have been made.

Correct, and I know of some loans which were made where the bank knew well the repayments could and would not be paid back as the repayments exceeded the borrowers income, once a short "interest only" period expired.

People have killed themselves after banks lent them money they should not have. Yet one banker walker away with a 20 million euro pension. The lowest of the low.

Fr Tod Umptious

maryishere wrote: »

Correct, and I know of some loans which were made where the bank knew well the repayments could and would not be paid back as the repayments exceeded the borrowers income, once a short "interest only" period expired.

People have killed themselves after banks lent them money they should not have. Yet one banker walker away with a 20 million euro pension. The lowest of the low.

People killed themselves because they took on loans they could not pay back.

What is it with people and the aversion to individual responsibility.

StupidLikeAFox

Ubbquittious wrote: »

People defending the banks.. tiger definitely back

Next we'll have people saying Varadkar and Bertie are great lads

Do we have to pick a side? I think most people would agree that the banks have done some shocking things, but that doesn't give people like the OP a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to paying his debts.

I think the bank were right to pursue their money as the OP wasn't paying it back, do I have to become a Bertie supporter now? I guess its nice when everyone is in neat, easy to understand boxes

maryishere

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

People killed themselves because they took on loans they could not pay back.

But the bank were supposed to have been experts and should not have lent the money if they knew it could not be paid back. Yet to get some end of month or end of quarter bonus or promotion some rogue banker lent the money. Not ethical or fair to the banks shareholders or society. The bankers involved should be sacked, just like the ones in the tracker scandal.

sbsquarepants

GrumpyMe wrote: »

So the "seller"would hit his/her target for that day, week, month, QTR, year...

I understand that - but you also have to look out for yourself. A lot of salesmen in all fields work on commission - you have to always be dubious of the advice given to you, when the person giving that advice stands to make money off your decision.
Too many people these days just cede responsibility for their wellbeing to complete strangers, and then are somehow shocked to find out that those strangers actually cared more about themselves. It's the real life equivalent of clicking the terms and conditions without reading them.

maryishere wrote: »

But the bank were supposed to have been experts and should not have lent the money if they knew it could not be paid back. Yet to get some end of month or end of quarter bonus or promotion some rogue banker lent the money. Not ethical or fair to the banks shareholders or society. The bankers involved should be sacked, just like the ones in the tracker scandal.

The tracker thing is completely different - it's organised crime plain and simple, a cartel agreement to defraud thousands of people out of hundreds of millions of euros. It's mafia shít - people should be doing 20 year stretches for this. What will actually happen is someone will get a slap on the wrist and a huge payoff to go quietly.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

maryishere wrote: »

But the bank were supposed to have been experts and should not have lent the money if they knew it could not be paid back. Yet to get some end of month or end of quarter bonus or promotion some rogue banker lent the money. Not ethical or fair to the banks shareholders or society. The bankers involved should be sacked, just like the ones in the tracker scandal.

Definitely the banks behaved irresponsibly and bear a lot of the blame for the debts people ran up during the economic boom. But personal responsibility also enters into it. People who borrowed large amounts of money for non essentials, and lived a high life simply because no one was saying 'no', are not in the same category as those who took out mortgages and then found property prices crashing all around them.

But a lot of people seem to think that the bank is like your parents or teachers. As long as they say it's okay to do something, then you're absolved of all responsibility. These numpties will be at it again in a couple of years, if our economy continues to grow. Boasting about their multiple holidays, changing the car every year, treating themselves to this, that and the other, all on credit or by spending every penny as soon as they get it and saving nothing for a rainy day, and then whinging and whining when it all comes tumbling down around them.

server down

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

People killed themselves because they took on loans they could not pay back.

What is it with people and the aversion to individual responsibility.

The banks should be the experts though, right? If they are giving 400K loans to people on 40K its not surprising that people fail, and of course there was a general expert consensus amongst most economists, politicians and the great and good that property never falls, or is due at worst a soft landing.

Fr Tod Umptious

Brock Creamy Accelerator wrote: »

Definitely the banks behaved irresponsibly and bear a lot of the blame for the debts people ran up during the economic boom. But personal responsibility also enters into it. People who borrowed large amounts of money for non essentials, and lived a high life simply because no one was saying 'no', are not in the same category as those who took out mortgages and then found property prices crashing all around them.

But a lot of people seem to think that the bank is like your parents or teachers. As long as they say it's okay to do something, then you're absolved of all responsibility. These numpties will be at it again in a couple of years, if our economy continues to grow. Boasting about their multiple holidays, changing the car every year, treating themselves to this, that and the other, all on credit or by spending every penny as soon as they get it and saving nothing for a rainy day, and then whinging and whining when it all comes tumbling down around them.

I remember seeing an TV show during the crash about people in financial problems.

One case was a family in the midlands living in a 3 bed room semi who owned €60,000 in non mortgage debt.

That's crazy.

Fr Tod Umptious

server down wrote: »

The banks should be the experts though, right? If they are giving 400K loans to people on 40K its not surprising that people fail, and of course there was a general expert consensus amongst most economists, politicians and the great and good that property never falls, or is due at worst a soft landing.

Property is different, we all felt the pressure to get on the property ladder.

My wife and I bought a house that is now worth half what we paid for it, but it's our house, we are paying it off and one day it will be ours for ourselves and to hand on to our kids.

But it's the non mortgage stuff, the cars, the holidays, the high interest credit cards etc.

That's the problem, people did not have to take out those loads.

In the OPs case it's a car loan he/she is not paying off.

how.gareth

bajer101 wrote: »

A major Irish bank decided to deactivate my current account without informing me. I first noticed it when my direct debits started failing and then noticed that my overdraft facility seemed to have been removed. Phoned them and they said that it was due to my car loan which was in arrears. Ok, but it would have been nice to be have been told about this. Losing your overdraft facility with no notice is challenging, but it's ok. I'm getting hammered on those overdraft rates anyway and I have a deposit coming in which will cover all that. Grand.

I get the lodgement into the account, nothing major, just a few grand of a tax rebate. Go shopping with the daughter and the card gets rejected. Try the ATM, rejected. Call the card service and am told the card has been cancelled. Go home annoyed.

Yesterday morning, go to local bank branch and they refused to give me my money saying that it was tied up with my loan account. Got my money out in the end.

Not being smart but why not use the few grand tax rebate to pay off your arrears on your loan?

Colonel Claptrap

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Property is different, we all felt the pressure to get on the property ladder.

My wife and I bought a house that is now worth half what we paid for it, but it's our house, we are paying it off and one day it will be ours for ourselves and to hand on to our kids.

But it's the non mortgage stuff, the cars, the holidays, the high interest credit cards etc.

That's the problem, people did not have to take out those loads.

In the OPs case it's a car loan he/she is not paying off.

People did not have to take out mortgages either.
Personal responsibility does not stop just because a house is involved. Arguably, there should be more personal responsibility for such a life changing financial decision.

Fr Tod Umptious

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

People did not have to take out mortgages either.
Personal responsibility does not stop just because a house is involved. Arguably, there should be more personal responsibility for such a life changing financial decision.

Yes and people did not have to specutavely buy multiple properties in multiple countries either, or properties as lavish as some were.

But the purchase of a family home is far more of an investment decision than taking out loan after loan on unnecessary items.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

People did not have to take out mortgages either.
Personal responsibility does not stop just because a house is involved. Arguably, there should be more personal responsibility for such a life changing financial decision.

No, but buying a house will always involve a loan. And putting a roof over your head, particularly in a country where the rental market is uncertain and provides the renter with little security, is seen as essential.

It is very different from getting into debt in order to build up a lifestyle that you simply cannot afford. It is now seen as quite normal to borrow large amounts of money, or run up debt on credit cards, for holidays, expensive clothes, a great social life etc. These things used to be considered luxuries, that you saved up for or did without. Nowadays people act as if they're essentials that warrant getting into debt for.

irishman86

Ireland where people not paying there loans is the banks fault :pac:
Maybe dont get out loans you cant afford to pay back
Its far from pity people who dont pay back loans should be getting

server down

irishman86 wrote: »

Ireland where people not paying there loans is the banks fault :pac:
Maybe dont get out loans you cant afford to pay back
Its far from pity people who dont pay back loans should be getting

Maybe dont give out loans for overpriced houses.

Its always the little guy isnt it? The banks, economists, journalist/property nexus are not to blame, even as their supposed expertise guaranteed property growth forever, or at the worst a soft landing.

seamus

server down wrote: »

Maybe dont give out loans for overpriced houses.

The price of the house is irrelevant really. It's capacity to repay that's important.

It doesn't matter if the house is overpriced by 50% so long as you can afford to repay it.

Anyway, I don't see anyone rushing to absolve the banks of blame. All parties need to accept that they made a mess of it rather than pointing fingers and whinging about how it wasn't their fault.

If you took out a loan you now can't repay, then you're an idiot for taking the loan and the bank is an idiot for giving it to you.

Ubbquittious

seamus wrote: »

The price of the house is irrelevant really. It's capacity to repay that's important.

It doesn't matter if the house is overpriced by 50% so long as you can afford to repay it.

Anyway, I don't see anyone rushing to absolve the banks of blame. All parties need to accept that they made a mess of it rather than pointing fingers and whinging about how it wasn't their fault.

If you took out a loan you now can't repay, then you're an idiot for taking the loan and the bank is an idiot for giving it to you.

Most of them aren't idiots unless they took out the loan while in possession of a crystal ball telling them when the tiger is going to end.

Its the way the system is set up. Some number of days from now a large number of businesses are going to go tits up and a load of people will lose their jobs and not be able to repay. The only way not to make a mess of it is never to take out a loan because the risk is never 0. Yet if nobody takes out a loan the mess will also be created because the only way new money enters the system is by people taking out loans

irishman86

server down wrote: »

Maybe dont give out loans for overpriced houses.

Its always the little guy isnt it? The banks, economists, journalist/property nexus are not to blame, even as their supposed expertise guaranteed property growth forever, or at the worst a soft landing.

If you cant afford the house dont buy the house
Maybe stop presuming that house prices are going to keep rising
I know this is going to shock you, but you dont need to own a house

server down

irishman86 wrote: »

If you cant afford the house dont buy the house
Maybe stop presuming that house prices are going to keep rising
I know this is going to shock you, but you dont need to own a house

Why do weak minds always answer a general question with a personal attack, or assume your political opinion is dependent on your personal circumstances? I have a house. I bought it 2012. I can well afford the mortgage payments even if they went up to 5-10%. I also didnt buy in 2006 even though I probably could.

People who bought a house in 2006 were a bit naive but they could afford repayments the house then. The banks agreed by lending them the price of the house. It was by overestimating the longevity of the boom, and the continuation of the housing market, that led what would have been a minor downturn in a great recession. Bank lending is to blame, and banks are primarily to blame.

Its a bit odd to blame the non-experts.

server down

seamus wrote: »

The price of the house is irrelevant really. It's capacity to repay that's important.

It doesn't matter if the house is overpriced by 50% so long as you can afford to repay it.

Anyway, I don't see anyone rushing to absolve the banks of blame. All parties need to accept that they made a mess of it rather than pointing fingers and whinging about how it wasn't their fault.

If you took out a loan you now can't repay, then you're an idiot for taking the loan and the bank is an idiot for giving it to you.

Why people idiots for that? I mean, yes, some people could look on the farther reaches of the internet to find people saying that the boom was unsustainable ( McWilliams perhaps aside) but the general establishment and expert concensus was a continued boom or a soft landing.

irishman86

server down wrote: »

Why do weak minds always answer a general question with a personal attack, or assume your political opinion is dependent on your personal circumstances? I have a house. I bought it 2012. I can well afford the mortgage payments even if they went up to 5-10%. I also didnt buy in 2006 even though I probably could.

People who bought a house in 2006 were a bit naive but they could afford repayments the house then. The banks agreed by lending them the price of the house. It was by overestimating the longevity of the boom, and the continuation of the housing market, that led what would have been a minor downturn in a great recession. Bank lending is to blame, and banks are primarily to blame.

Its a bit odd to blame the non-experts.

You realise the irony in your post, unless you start with a self reference for some reason :rolleyes:
Naive is the wrong word, greedy and stupid is
Its not always banks that are the blame, did the plumbers really need a house in Spain and a new car to go with the mansion they built :pac:
Off course you should blame the non-experts, they were the ones who bought into the sales pitch hook line and sinker
Ireland a country where everyone lives in comparison to the neighbour is a perfect country to sell to
The every day man in Ireland is as much at fault as the bankers

server down

irishman86 wrote: »

Naive is the wrong word, greedy and stupid is
Its not always banks that are the blame, did the plumbers really need a house in Spain and a new car to go with the mansion they built :pac:
Off course you should blame the non-experts, they were the ones who bought into the sales pitch hook line and sinker
Ireland a country where everyone lives in comparison to the neighbour is a perfect country to sell to
The every day man in Ireland is as much at fault as the bankers

We are talking, in the main, if we are talking about the every day man, about a man who bought a simple semi detached house. Nothing greedy about that.

server down

By the way some people who bought in the boom did pretty well, given the tracker mortgages they have locked in. Even in 2012 I couldnt buy a house -- on an equivalent income -- as good as some of my friends had done. They werent geniuses and the people who over borrowed werent fools.