Leo is the new king of Ireland.

charlie14

Jawgap wrote: »

We're paying over the odds for our mortgages because we pussyfoot around grasping the nettle of non-performing mortgages.

I have heard that argument from insurance companies for donkeys years.
We have even passed legislation to facilitate them, and them looking for more of the same.
I don`t know about your insurance, but mine has only gone in one direction, up.
I would have absolutely no faith in the banks doing anything less.

charlie14

Bob_Marley wrote: »

"Leo is as popular as Bertie Ahern in his day"

Tony Blair was also extremely popular in his hay day.

All I see is constant spin and no substance.

Does that not set any alarm bells ringing ? Do the Irish people learn nothing ?

I would be agreement on the spin and substance, but it appears that is the world we now live in.

The wife mentioned the other day that one of those Kardashian`s (who faik are famous for nothing more than for being famous) closed her Instagram (i think) account, and Billions were wiped of Instagrams value.

We seem to have a lot of magpies out there that are attracted to flash things.

Jawgap

charlie14 wrote: »

I have heard that argument from insurance companies for donkeys years.
We have even passed legislation to facilitate them, and them looking for more of the same.
I don`t know about your insurance, but mine has only gone in one direction, up.
I would have absolutely no faith in the banks doing anything less.

Compare and contrast the process in the different countries and you'll get an idea.......likewise look at the pay outs here and compare them to other countries (esp for whiplash and soft tissue injuries) and you'll quickly see why our insurance has jumped.

Actions have consequences......if property is more difficult to repossess then that gets reflected in the cost of the system which we, as consumers, then have to pay.

Zubeneschamali

charlie14 wrote: »

Sorry if I didn`t make it clear.

The banks were reckless gamblers which cost their shareholders.
That is the nature of being a shareholder.
It`s a gamble, when things are good you win, when bad you lose

I quite agree, but this is the exact opposite of what you said 2 posts ago, when you claimed the taxpayer paid all the debt and the banks walked away laughing.

charlie14

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I quite agree, but this is the exact opposite of what you said 2 posts ago, when you claimed the taxpayer paid all the debt and the banks walked away laughing.

I didn`t, and if it came across that way then sorry for the confusion.
I hope my later post clarifying what I intended to convey cleared that up.

I also made clear in that clarification my thoughts on bondholders which you omitted when replying, which further clarified it.

Zubeneschamali

charlie14 wrote: »

I also made clear in that clarification my thoughts on bondholders which you omitted when replying, which further clarified it.

We did let the bondholders off scot free, which in retrospect was clearly the right decision, as a quick look at our creditworthiness now shows. At the time, we didn't really have a choice, since the ECB who had us over a barrel told us what to do.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

The free money the banks got will be the amount the taxpayer will never see at the end of the day added to what that money could and should have been used for imo,the benefit of taxpayers rather than going to reckless gamblers such as the banks and bondholders who walked away laughing.
If you want us to play by those rules then nobody, not even the chancers in arrears, would have a thing to worry about.

The social housing process is already bursting at the seams.
Another potential 20,000 families is not going to improve it.

One of the biggest reasons the taxpayers will not see the money is because of the 20,000 who are refusing to pay their mortgage.

If they all paid their mortgage in full, without any discounts, without any restructuring, then the banks would be better off, and the taxpayers would get a return. As it is, the taxpayers' contribution have enabled the lifestyle defaulters (and there are lots of them who could pay but won't pay) to continue their lifestyle on the back of the higher taxes that everyone has suffered and the lower wages that the public service have suffered.

Bailing out those who claim not to be able to afford their mortgage and just giving them debt forgiveness is the type of FF sneaky deal to help the rich at the expense of the poor that I thought this country was leaving behind. I am not surprised to see FF pushing this line, but it seems that FF-lite in the form of SF have also got in on the action.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/48334

"The government should also instruct banks in which it has a majority share, and which were saved at a huge cost to the Irish taxpayer, to look seriously at writing down some of the mortgage debt as a way of easing the crisis."

There you have it, in Adams own words, look after the rich who can afford to buy houses, at the expense of those who can only afford to rent and who are paying tax.

charlie14

Jawgap wrote: »

Compare and contrast the process in the different countries and you'll get an idea.......likewise look at the pay outs here and compare them to other countries (esp for whiplash and soft tissue injuries) and you'll quickly see why our insurance has jumped.

Actions have consequences......if property is more difficult to repossess then that gets reflected in the cost of the system which we, as consumers, then have to pay.

Irish insurance companies are very good at calling for legislation with their arguments that such and such will lower prices. With all the legislation to date I have yet to see their prices drop.
On whiplash and soft tissue injuries there have been many settlements by Irish Insurance companies either out of court or on a none-disclosure basis thus going unpublished thus bypassing the Book of Quantum.
The commission under Justice Kearns in it`s report stated " At a cursory level, this indicates that less severe injuries in Ireland tend to attract higher levels of damage but that is less pronounced as the severity of injuries increase"
Makes you wonder would it not that while insurance companies bemoan the payouts for whiplash and soft tissue injuries they are very reticent on allowing the figures to become public.

The actions of the banks have already had very severe consequence due to bankers greed
Much like the insurance companies, especially where in this occasion their is one that has a level of 28% of all mortgages "under-performing", I would be very reticent on allowing them to wash their hands of their problem by throwing anyone to a vulture fund on their say-so alone.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

One of the biggest reasons the taxpayers will not see the money is because of the 20,000 who are refusing to pay their mortgage.

If they all paid their mortgage in full, without any discounts, without any restructuring, then the banks would be better off, and the taxpayers would get a return. As it is, the taxpayers' contribution have enabled the lifestyle defaulters (and there are lots of them who could pay but won't pay) to continue their lifestyle on the back of the higher taxes that everyone has suffered and the lower wages that the public service have suffered.

Bailing out those who claim not to be able to afford their mortgage and just giving them debt forgiveness is the type of FF sneaky deal to help the rich at the expense of the poor that I thought this country was leaving behind. I am not surprised to see FF pushing this line, but it seems that FF-lite in the form of SF have also got in on the action.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/48334

"The government should also instruct banks in which it has a majority share, and which were saved at a huge cost to the Irish taxpayer, to look seriously at writing down some of the mortgage debt as a way of easing the crisis."

There you have it, in Adams own words, look after the rich who can afford to buy houses, at the expense of those who can only afford to rent and who are paying tax.

There is nowhere I advocated allowing those that can afford to pay but refuse just continuing on in their merry way.

After that from a quick scan and seeing you are continuing with your obsession of inserting something or other about SF in yet another of your posts I just lost interest and switched off.

charlie14

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We did let the bondholders off scot free, which in retrospect was clearly the right decision, as a quick look at our creditworthiness now shows. At the time, we didn't really have a choice, since the ECB who had us over a barrel told us what to do.

FG and Labour both campaigned in the 2011 GE campaign on it being the right decision to burn bondholders so obviously they must have believed it was the correct thing to do.
The ECB ruled otherwise then but not a policy they adhered to where others were concerned I seem to recall.

Jawgap

charlie14 wrote: »

Irish insurance companies are very good at calling for legislation with their arguments that such and such will lower prices. With all the legislation to date I have yet to see their prices drop.
On whiplash and soft tissue injuries there have been many settlements by Irish Insurance companies either out of court or on a none-disclosure basis thus going unpublished thus bypassing the Book of Quantum.
The commission under Justice Kearns in it`s report stated " At a cursory level, this indicates that less severe injuries in Ireland tend to attract higher levels of damage but that is less pronounced as the severity of injuries increase"
Makes you wonder would it not that while insurance companies bemoan the payouts for whiplash and soft tissue injuries they are very reticent on allowing the figures to become public.

The actions of the banks have already had very severe consequence due to bankers greed
Much like the insurance companies, especially where in this occasion their is one that has a level of 28% of all mortgages "under-performing", I would be very reticent on allowing them to wash their hands of their problem by throwing anyone to a vulture fund on their say-so alone.

You can introduce legislation all you want - but as long as we have a right to go before the court and plead out a case for damages there will always be an incentive for companies to settle out of court, even in respect of the most questionable of cases.

Frankly, no damages should be payable for those type of soft tissue/whiplash injuries but insurance companies should be liable for the injured person's care and rehab.

And yes, bankers were greedy - but I must have missed the bit where they forced borrowers to take money? Bankers could have been as greedy as they liked but that greed only caused problems when equally greedy borrowers happened along - so why not apply the same deal to the borrowers as the lenders - as in, the State will provide the money to bail you out, but you surrender ownership of the asset in return?

......or does that not play into the populist narrative of greedy bankers etc?

And here's something I've always wondered about - if insurance and banking are so so profitable - where's the mutuals in all this? Surely with such huge amounts of cash sloshing about there's money to be made by people or communities coming together and forming mutuals?

charlie14

Jawgap wrote: »

You can introduce legislation all you want - but as long as we have a right to go before the court and plead out a case for damages there will always be an incentive for companies to settle out of court, even in respect of the most questionable of cases.

Frankly, no damages should be payable for those type of soft tissue/whiplash injuries but insurance companies should be liable for the injured person's care and rehab.

And yes, bankers were greedy - but I must have missed the bit where they forced borrowers to take money? Bankers could have been as greedy as they liked but that greed only caused problems when equally greedy borrowers happened along - so why not apply the same deal to the borrowers as the lenders - as in, the State will provide the money to bail you out, but you surrender ownership of the asset in return?

......or does that not play into the populist narrative of greedy bankers etc?

And here's something I've always wondered about - if insurance and banking are so so profitable - where's the mutuals in all this? Surely with such huge amounts of cash sloshing about there's money to be made by people or communities coming together and forming mutuals?

On soft tissue injuries I would be inclined to agree, but on the whiplash I would not be so sure.I have never made an insurance claim in my life other than once for lost luggage, but a brain being rattled around and the possible effects on vertebrae and spinal cord has the potential to be more long term term than soft tissue injuries.
For me the answer to much of what has being going on with claims is for the insurance companies to be more open as too what they are paying out and for what injuries.
The fact that they are so secretive on some payments when it comes to how they would compare with the Book of Quantum does not help their own case imo.

Apologies if I took you up wrong before.
I would be totally in favour of the state buying up these mortgages.
Not just for the price being offered to vulture funds, but not on a job lot basis. A one to one basis taking into account what the banks have already received in payments from the mortgage holder in question, with a further cut reflecting the assistance that has already been given to such banks.
The state would then own those houses and charge a mortgage rate on that one to one basis but not including any monies they could squeeze out of the bank on the prior assistance it received.

Good point about mutuals.
I would be in favour of opening up the banking sector to include credit unions and especially post offices where it would be a major help imo in keeping especially rural post offices open and make banks rethink about replacing staff with machines.
Nowadays in a bank you would need to go in with a search party to have any hope of finding anybody with a pulse to provide assistance if needed.
.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

Was in my bank at lunchtime today. Got served in less than 10 minutes to be fair.

Our local branch of BOI doesent do any cross counter transactions, ulster Bank closed their branch, but provide a mobile bank twice a week. That's despite 5 workers in branch. That's Arva Co Cavan.
If we want in branch services we have to travel to Cavan or Longford towns, from us about 18 miles either way.
All branches of other banks in any local towns are closed up.
The 5 workers are in BOI, just to clarify.

Zubeneschamali

charlie14 wrote: »

FG and Labour both campaigned in the 2011 GE campaign on it being the right decision to burn bondholders so obviously they must have believed it was the correct thing to do.

Obviously they both believed that campaigning on it was the right thing to do, because it is populist and will win votes.

This does not mean either of them thought that they could or would actually do it if elected.

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

Our local branch of BOI doesent do any cross counter transactions, ulster Bank closed their branch, but provide a mobile bank twice a week. That's despite 5 workers in branch. That's Arva Co Cavan.
If we want in branch services we have to travel to Cavan or Longford towns, from us about 18 miles either way.
All branches of other banks in any local towns are closed up.
The 5 workers are in BOI, just to clarify.

That is because of the world-wide trend towards urbanisation. Ireland is catching up on the rest of the world.

Villages weren't viable for banks ten years ago, even small towns can't carry a bank anymore.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

There is nowhere I advocated allowing those that can afford to pay but refuse just continuing on in their merry way.

After that from a quick scan and seeing you are continuing with your obsession of inserting something or other about SF in yet another of your posts I just lost interest and switched off.

Any form of restructuring mortgages paid for by the taxpayer is a transfer of money from the poor to the rich.

The real poor in this country can't afford to get a mortgage. Helping those with a mortgage is helping the relatively rich.

Liquidity in the Irish property market is being kept ridiculously low by the banks' refusal to foreclose on unviable mortgages. That only keeps prices up and makes it harder for the young to buy. A transfer of wealth from the young to the old.

There is just so much that is wrong with the idea of bailing out mortgages, but there is also so much that is popular about it, which makes it no surprise that the largest populist party this country has ever seen in FF is leading the charge on this one.

FreudianSlippers

Is there really anything that a teller does that the machines don't do now anyway?

FreudianSlippers

blanch152 wrote: »

Any form of restructuring mortgages paid for by the taxpayer is a transfer of money from the poor to the rich.

The real poor in this country can't afford to get a mortgage. Helping those with a mortgage is helping the relatively rich.

Liquidity in the Irish property market is being kept ridiculously low by the banks' refusal to foreclose on unviable mortgages. That only keeps prices up and makes it harder for the young to buy. A transfer of wealth from the young to the old.

There is just so much that is wrong with the idea of bailing out mortgages, but there is also so much that is popular about it, which makes it no surprise that the largest populist party this country has ever seen in FF is leading the charge on this one.

+1

In fact, the notion that we should be giving poor people mortgages is a part of the underlying problem.

Idbatterim

this whole urban rural debate. Its actually laughable! why arent we trying to attract more of the emigrants back home? lower the ridiculous marginal rate, child care costs and housing cost!

sort out the idiotic planning too!

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Any form of restructuring mortgages paid for by the taxpayer is a transfer of money from the poor to the rich.

So can I take it you also objected to the restructuring of the banks at a cost of 64 Billion Euro that is costing the taxpayer 1 Billion Euro a year in just service charges alone for the same reason ?

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

So can I take it you also objected to the restructuring of the banks at a cost of 64 Billion Euro that is costing the taxpayer 1 Billion Euro a year in just service charges alone for the same reason ?

I objected to the bailout of Anglo Irish Bank, a plaything for the rich. The stupidest political decision ever in this country was the September 2008 bank guarantee.

Ironically, the only political party to object to it at the time was the Labour Party, who have got most of the blame for the economic collapse from the taxpayer. I voted Labour No. 1 in 2011 because of their principled objection to the bank guarantee, and No. 2 in 2016.

Unfortunately, the other banks - AIB and Bank of Ireland - are systemic and we had no option but to rescue them. The mistake (and this was FF's decision) was saving Anglo as well, it should have been left to rot. And finally, before you come back and say FG, Europe etc., the wheels were set in motion by the bank guarantee in 2008 and all that happened after was that the Irish people were made live up to the promises freely made by the FF government against the advice of Europe. In fact, the only advice taken by Lenihan at the time appeared to be from David Williams, another of the false economic prophets.

Jawgap

charlie14 wrote: »

So can I take it you also objected to the restructuring of the banks at a cost of 64 Billion Euro that is costing the taxpayer 1 Billion Euro a year in just service charges alone for the same reason ?

So what would have been your alternative.......let them fail?

.....and if we had burned the bondholders, who would we have borrowed from in subsequent years? Or do you think having been burned they'd have just ponied up any time we wanted to borrow a few quid and not looked for punitive coupon rates?

....where do you think banks actually get their money to lend to people to buy homes, or invest in their businesses? And if the banks had been let fail where would people have saved/kept their money - the local credit union?

As suggested above Anglo should've been thrown aside.

Idbatterim

I objected to the bailout of Anglo Irish Bank, a plaything for the rich. The stupidest political decision ever in this country was the September 2008 bank guarantee.

Ironically, the only political party to object to it at the time was the Labour Party, who have got most of the blame for the economic collapse from the taxpayer. I voted Labour No. 1 in 2011 because of their principled objection to the bank guarantee, and No. 2 in 2016.

our of all the delusion, Labours way or Frankfurts way is the best thing I have heard, delusional doesnt do it justice! The naivety of anyone thinking, this is about "right" and "wrong" "justice" spare me! You think the likes of the idiots involved in labour were going to go in demanding terms, when we were the ones f*cked? what were they going to do when the billions stopped flowing? pull the plug on the outrageous welfare state, PS etc? spare me. The way this panned out, was the only way it was every going to pan out. Ill tell you what, if we had to live within our means, that would have seen some actual "hard decisions" made! Also while I think Labour are clowns because all they support is cradle to the grave welfare and endless hand outs rather than hand ups, the wipe out they received shows just what utter deluded morons the people that voted for them and then deserted in their droves, are!

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I objected to the bailout of Anglo Irish Bank, a plaything for the rich. The stupidest political decision ever in this country was the September 2008 bank guarantee.

Ironically, the only political party to object to it at the time was the Labour Party, who have got most of the blame for the economic collapse from the taxpayer. I voted Labour No. 1 in 2011 because of their principled objection to the bank guarantee, and No. 2 in 2016.

Unfortunately, the other banks - AIB and Bank of Ireland - are systemic and we had no option but to rescue them. The mistake (and this was FF's decision) was saving Anglo as well, it should have been left to rot. And finally, before you come back and say FG, Europe etc., the wheels were set in motion by the bank guarantee in 2008 and all that happened after was that the Irish people were made live up to the promises freely made by the FF government against the advice of Europe. In fact, the only advice taken by Lenihan at the time appeared to be from David Williams, another of the false economic prophets.

You can waffle away on what had to be saved as systematic, what was not, and who was right or wrong.
The facts are we pumped 64 Billion into the banks, their guarantors the bond holders walked away virtually scot-free.
All at the expense of the taxpayer due to nothing more than bankers greed.
Having Irish citizens and taxpayers thrown to the wolves of vulture funds by these same banks I find absolutely disgusting.

I have said how I feel it should be dealt with.
If you disagree and believe it is fine and dandy to have a potential 20,000 householders thrown out on the streets, then that is your prerogative, but I have no wish to engage with you or anyone else on that premise.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Can we stay on topic please. Service received at regional branches of various banks is not the topic of this thread.

charlie14

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Can we stay on topic please. Service received at regional branches of various banks is not the topic of this thread.

Does that not mean that all posts in relation to bank mortgages should also be regarded as of topic and deleted as well.

ancapailldorcha

charlie14 wrote: »

Does that not mean that all posts in relation to bank mortgages should also be regarded as of topic and deleted as well.

Mod: Probably should, actually.

Right, please keep discussion to Leo Varadkar's tenure as Taoiseach and all related matters please. If anyone would like to discuss the financial crash and bailouts, please feel free to start a new thread.

FreudianSlippers

blanch152 wrote: »

I objected to the bailout of Anglo Irish Bank, a plaything for the rich. The stupidest political decision ever in this country was the September 2008 bank guarantee.

Ironically, the only political party to object to it at the time was the Labour Party, who have got most of the blame for the economic collapse from the taxpayer. I voted Labour No. 1 in 2011 because of their principled objection to the bank guarantee, and No. 2 in 2016.

Unfortunately, the other banks - AIB and Bank of Ireland - are systemic and we had no option but to rescue them. The mistake (and this was FF's decision) was saving Anglo as well, it should have been left to rot. And finally, before you come back and say FG, Europe etc., the wheels were set in motion by the bank guarantee in 2008 and all that happened after was that the Irish people were made live up to the promises freely made by the FF government against the advice of Europe. In fact, the only advice taken by Lenihan at the time appeared to be from David Williams, another of the false economic prophets.

I agree with most of what you said here, but two points:

1) I disagree that the bailout was a bad decision - I agree that in retrospect, the blanket guarantee was a bad decision, however...
2) Lenihan wanted to burn Anglo but was not allowed to, the decision was then made to bail out Anglo when the government received economic statements from Anglo that were cooked beyond belief which made it appear that the bank was "too big to fail".

FreudianSlippers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Probably should, actually.

Right, please keep discussion to Leo Varadkar's tenure as Taoiseach and all related matters please. If anyone would like to discuss the financial crash and bailouts, please feel free to start a new thread.

Sorry - posted before I saw this!

Jawgap

I see he's was out checking in on potential rivals for the leadership

Young(est) Fine Gael? Varadkar visits after Garret FitzGerald’s great-grandson born