Leo is the new king of Ireland.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Ya, the poor mortgage holders just might have to pay back what they borrowed.

You will excuse me if my heart does not bleed for the banks who as a result of their reckless lending had their private debts turned into public debt at the taxpayers expense, while their bondholders walked away whistling.

Especially one whose lending was so reckless that it has 28% of its mortgages "under-performing".
But sure what harm Mayanne, better to throw these people to the wolves rather than give them the cuts being given to vulture funds.
When they are thrown out on the streets and the taxpayer is picking up the tab to rehouse them, we can all basked in the warm glow that the banks are doing grand.

I myself got a lovely warm glow just a few month`s ago when I saw AIB made a half year profit of 814 Million, but would not have to pay a penny in corporation tax as the have a deferred tax "asset" of 3 Billion.
Meanwhile the taxpayer is forking out 1 Billion a year just servicing the money borrowed to bail out the banks.

charlie14

Jawgap wrote: »

My understanding is that only the under-performing or non-performing mortgages are being sold?

If you've been paying your mortgage it's not a problem.

Have they classified what they term as under-performing, or even non-performing ?

It sounds like two phrases where in bank-speak especially there could be a lot of devil in the detail.

Jawgap

charlie14 wrote: »

Have they classified what they term as under-performing, or even non-performing ?

It sounds like two phrases where in bank-speak especially there could be a lot of devil in the detail.

Anything more than 90 days in arrears is considered to be non-performing......the PTSB sale also includes borrowers who are years in arrears as well as double defaulters......as in people who defaulted on arrangements put in place after a previous default.

Phoebas

charlie14 wrote: »

Have they classified what they term as under-performing, or even non-performing ?

It sounds like two phrases where in bank-speak especially there could be a lot of devil in the detail.

They are loans that are in arrears. The average being in arrears for over 3.5 years, so we're not talking about people who fell behind on a couple of payments here.

charlie14

Phoebas wrote: »

They are loans that are in arrears. The average being in arrears for over 3.5 years, so we're not talking about people who fell behind on a couple of payments here.

Jawgap reckons that anything more than 90 days is arrears, (which sounds credible especially where banks are concerned) that would be no more than a couple of payments.
That from the reckless lending by banks and their underhand dealings (theft and someting they should be prosecuted for imo) on tracker mortgages, I would be very skeptical of their averages.

Idbatterim

charlie14 wrote: »

Jawgap reckons that anything more than 90 days is arrears, (which sounds credible especially where banks are concerned) that would be no more than a couple of payments.
That from the reckless lending by banks and their underhand dealings (theft and someting they should be prosecuted for imo) on tracker mortgages, I would be very skeptical of their averages.

the banks were actually broke though. Many of these not repairing their mortgages are choosing not too ...

Topgear on Dave

Werent the bank shareholders utterly incinerated. Lots of them lost huge money.

Phoebas

charlie14 wrote: »

Jawgap reckons that anything more than 90 days is arrears, (which sounds credible especially where banks are concerned) that would be no more than a couple of payments.

The loan book being sold are all in arrears. That doesn't mean that all loans in arrears are being sold.

The average loan being sold is 2.5 years in arrears.

charlie14

Idbatterim wrote: »

the banks were actually broke though. Many of these not repairing their mortgages are choosing not too ...

AIB alone for the first half of 2017 made a profit of 814 Million.
That is over 6 Million per day for every every working day.
A profit that they did not to have to pay a cent on in corporation tax.

charlie14

Phoebas wrote: »

The loan book being sold are all in arrears. That doesn't mean that all loans in arrears are being sold.

The average loan being sold is 2.5 years in arrears.

If Jawgap is correct,( and where banks are concerned I would have no reason to doubt it) then as far as banks are concerned any mortgage "non-performing" for more than 90 days is termed as in arrears.
In which case those would be included in the banks average.

Jawgap

charlie14 wrote: »

Jawgap reckons that anything more than 90 days is arrears, (which sounds credible especially where banks are concerned) that would be no more than a couple of payments.
That from the reckless lending by banks and their underhand dealings (theft and someting they should be prosecuted for imo) on tracker mortgages, I would be very skeptical of their averages.

Jawgap reckons feck all.......that's the central bank's definition of a non-performing loan, be it a mortgage or other secured debt.

And that's the the threshold definition.......from what I understand the bulk of these mortgages are years in arrears, not 91 or 92 days in arrears.

Look, it's simple......don't want to see your mortgage transferred, keep up payments on it......if you negotiate a revised schedule stick to it.

charlie14

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Werent the bank shareholders utterly incinerated. Lots of them lost huge money.

If you are a shareholder in any company that performs in such a reckless manner and loses money as the banks did, that is what happens when the share price goes down.

Shares are no different than gambling no matter what company they are in.
They go up, you make a profit. They go down, you lose money.
That is unless, where the Irish banks were concerned, you were a bondholder.

charlie14

Jawgap wrote: »

Jawgap reckons feck all.......that's the central bank's definition of a non-performing loan, be it a mortgage or other secured debt.

And that's the the threshold definition.......from what I understand the bulk of these mortgages are years in arrears, not 91 or 92 days in arrears.

Look, it's simple......don't want to see your mortgage transferred, keep up payments on it......if you negotiate a revised schedule stick to it.

Then even if you reckoned feck all, from that you would appear to have been correct.
Any mortgage non-performing for 90 days or more would be included in that average.
It would include mortgage thrown to a vulture fund for missing as little as few payments.

Jawgap

charlie14 wrote: »

Then even if you reckoned feck all, from that you would appear to have been correct.
Any mortgage non-performing for 90 days or more would be included in that average.
It would include mortgage thrown to a vulture fund for missing as little as few payments.

No bank is going to hand over a mortgage to anyone if it's in arrears and there's a reasonable prospect those arrears can be made good. That'd be like handing free money over.

And let's also remember that the homes in question aren't going anywhere - it's in the vulture funds interest to move the properties on or get tenants in, so why should people who are working and saving be denied an opportunity to reap the rewards of their efforts and get home? Why protect delinquent borrowers when we could give families striving to get a home a leg up?

Galwayguy35

In fairness the banks will try to work out something with people who are having difficulty paying back their mortgage but it sounds like the people we're talking about here made no effort to try and work with the bank.

Nobody was forced to take out a loan and when we do it's our job to pay it back.

Banks aren't charity organisations, they give us money to buy expensive things like houses and make a profit on the interest of the loan, now the interest rates they charge are ridiculous compared to other countries but that's for another thread.

It's laughable FF getting up on their high horse over this considering their leader was on of the guys who got us in to this mess in the first place.

Idbatterim

charlie14 wrote: »

AIB alone for the first half of 2017 made a profit of 814 Million.
That is over 6 Million per day for every every working day.
A profit that they did not to have to pay a cent on in corporation tax.

Can they not stay majority government owned? I’m the first to agree with to hell with them creaming it off again , given what happened...

charlie14

Jawgap wrote: »

No bank is going to hand over a mortgage to anyone if it's in arrears and there's a reasonable prospect those arrears can be made good. That'd be like handing free money over.

And let's also remember that the homes in question aren't going anywhere - it's in the vulture funds interest to move the properties on or get tenants in, so why should people who are working and saving be denied an opportunity to reap the rewards of their efforts and get home? Why protect delinquent borrowers when we could give families striving to get a home a leg up?

The taxpayer handed over a lot of "free money" to the banks.......well not exactly true...... the taxpayer borrowed a lot of money to hand over to the banks that the interest alone is still costing the taxpayer the guts of a billion a year in interest, while we have banks making huge daily profits who do not have to pay a red cent in corporation tax.

I`m not saying there are people who are not taking advantage, but for a start I would question the conditions of issue of those mortgages where a bank has 28% of them in arrears.
When you see the carry-on of banks on tracker mortgages, for me those mortgages should be carefully scrutinised before handing them over in a job lot to a vulture fund.
Where applicable the cut price being given to the vulture funds should then be applied to these mortgages and reviewed ever 6 months, where if not working then sell them off.

I do see your point on these homes being sold on by the vulture fund, but are we not running a serious risk of having potentially 20,000 families needing to be then housed by the state at further cost to the taxpayer while the banks are busy counting the cash received from a vulture fund.
It`s not as if any families that lose their homes are just going to disappear.

charlie14

Idbatterim wrote: »

Can they not stay majority government owned? I’m the first to agree with to hell with them creaming it off again , given what happened...

With all the money banks have cost the state repeatedly over the years, not just the latest, you would imagine it might be an idea.

Seems not though. 28.75% of AIB sold off already and more planned.

Jawgap

charlie14 wrote: »

The taxpayer handed over a lot of "free money" to the banks.......well not exactly true...... the taxpayer borrowed a lot of money to hand over to the banks that the interest alone is still costing the taxpayer the guts of a billion a year in interest, while we have banks making huge daily profits who do not have to pay a red cent in corporation tax.

I`m not saying there are people who are not taking advantage, but for a start I would question the conditions of issue of those mortgages where a bank has 28% of them in arrears.
When you see the carry-on of banks on tracker mortgages, for me those mortgages should be carefully scrutinised before handing them over in a job lot to a vulture fund.
Where applicable the cut price being given to the vulture funds should then be applied to these mortgages and reviewed ever 6 months, where if not working then sell them off.

I do see your point on these homes being sold on by the vulture fund, but are we not running a serious risk of having potentially 20,000 families needing to be then housed by the state at further cost to the taxpayer while the banks are busy counting the cash received from a vulture fund.
It`s not as if any families that lose their homes are just going to disappear.

The banks did not get free money, they had to hand over controlling equity stakes which the State can now sell.

Maybe the same standard should apply to borrowers as well as lenders? You get a bailout but you surrender ownership, while retaining possession, until you can buy the ownership interest back, or the State can sell the interest having given you first refusal.

As for the families, why not put them through the social housing process? They'll have to be candid about income, assets etc and then a determination will be made, unlike the current situation where a chunk simply refuse to pay and use their income to fund their lifestyle while the rest of us subsidise their accommodation.

charlie14

Jawgap wrote: »

The banks did not get free money, they had to hand over controlling equity stakes which the State can now sell.

Maybe the same standard should apply to borrowers as well as lenders? You get a bailout but you surrender ownership, while retaining possession, until you can buy the ownership interest back, or the State can sell the interest having given you first refusal.

As for the families, why not put them through the social housing process? They'll have to be candid about income, assets etc and then a determination will be made, unlike the current situation where a chunk simply refuse to pay and use their income to fund their lifestyle while the rest of us subsidise their accommodation.

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.

Zubeneschamali

charlie14 wrote: »

reckless gamblers such as the banks and bondholders who walked away laughing.

"The banks" did not walk away laughing - the owners were completely wiped out.

charlie14

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"The banks" did not walk away laughing - the owners were completely wiped out.

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

The bondholders walked away laughing.
They won when things were good.
The Irish taxpayer lost on their behalf when thing went bad.

Edward M

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

The bondholders walked away laughing.
They won when things were good.
The Irish taxpayer lost on their behalf when thing went bad.

Exactly charlie.
Sure we need a banking system, but this sell off is an attempt to bypass mortgage rules as laid down after the crash.
If there are none performing loans that can but aren't being paid off then it is only right that the banks should seek to have their due monies from these loans, but lumping the truly genuine hard pressed mortgage owners in with them is going to exacerbate their problems.
It looks like FF are going to stop it if possible, one way or another though, if FG take the banks side on this, they are handing a huge initiative to FF.
In political terms, like the water issue, this would be a huge mistake for FG I think.

Jawgap

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

The bondholders walked away laughing.
They won when things were good.
The Irish taxpayer lost on their behalf when thing went bad.

Reckless lending requires reckless borrowing......I don't know about anyone else but I know any time I took out a mortgage it was a long involved process - I didn't just rock up and ask for a pile of cash. Nor did anyone force me to take any money, but your experience might have been different.

People over-borrowed and gambled in doing so. That was their choice and like the people who chose to invest in the banks, it didn't work out. So explain why anyone who over-borrowed, fudged their income figures, failed to honour commitments on renting out etc deserve the rest of us putting up with the additional costs their recklessness contributed to introducing into the banking system?

We need and needed a functioning banking system, we didn't need to give people a "free" pass at the expense of everyone else.

Edward M

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

In fairness the banks will try to work out something with people who are having difficulty paying back their mortgage but it sounds like the people we're talking about here made no effort to try and work with the bank.

Nobody was forced to take out a loan and when we do it's our job to pay it back.

Banks aren't charity organisations, they give us money to buy expensive things like houses and make a profit on the interest of the loan, now the interest rates they charge are ridiculous compared to other countries but that's for another thread.

It's laughable FF getting up on their high horse over this considering their leader was on of the guys who got us in to this mess in the first place.

That part about FF and MM is certainly true.
The part about the loans are also true, but I'd say an awful lot of those in arrears are genuinely in difficulty.
No one expects people to get away with not paying loans, but there should be some more ethical way to deal with the issue.
Selling off bad loans will lead only to one thing, a forced repossession no matter how genuine the case is.
These vulture funds aren't called vultures for nothing, they feed off the weak and vulnerable.

Jawgap

Edward M wrote: »

That part about FF and MM is certainly true.
The part about the loans are also true, but I'd say an awful lot of those in arrears are genuinely in difficulty.
No one expects people to get away with not paying loans, but there should be some more ethical way to deal with the issue.
Selling off bad loans will lead only to one thing, a forced repossession no matter how genuine the case is.
These vulture funds aren't called vultures for nothing, they feed off the weak and vulnerable.

You do realise that there are many reasons why we don't have an optimally functioning mortgage market, chief among which is the difficulty lenders have in obtaining possession when borrowers become delinquent?

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

Edward M

Edward M wrote: »

That part about FF and MM is certainly true.
The part about the loans are also true, but I'd say an awful lot of those in arrears are genuinely in difficulty.
No one expects people to get away with not paying loans, but there should be some more ethical way to deal with the issue.
Selling off bad loans will lead only to one thing, a forced repossession no matter how genuine the case is.
These vulture funds aren't called vultures for nothing, they feed off the weak and vulnerable.

What would you have the banks do? Leave people live for free forever?

Edward M

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What would you have the banks do? Leave people live for free forever?

If the law needs changing, change it.
Selling off these loans is not the answer. Something should have been learned here already given the prices nama received for properties it sold off.
I know investors were harder to find a few years ago, but it doesent change the fact that vultures made a killing out of this country on the back of nama based sales.
There has to be a way to legislate that allows banks to force people who can pay to pay.
Anyone proven to be able should have their houses or businesses or whatever foreclosed.
Anyone that can't should be offered a deal that would suit them, with the property going to the bank at some stage in the future unless the debt is paid in full.
It would take work of course, generate a bit of employment even, if some extra staff had to be taken on to sift it out.
But no, the banks just want to cut their losses, close branches and get as much staff off their books as possible and sell for a fraction of what they are worth, loans to vultures.
The banks left here owe this countries taxpayers their very existence still, but go forbid that they should have carry any person that needs help.
A lot of our banks coerced people in to getting out loans above their needs and capabilities of paying off anyway.

Bob_Marley

"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 ?

charlie14

Jawgap wrote: »

Reckless lending requires reckless borrowing......I don't know about anyone else but I know any time I took out a mortgage it was a long involved process - I didn't just rock up and ask for a pile of cash. Nor did anyone force me to take any money, but your experience might have been different.

People over-borrowed and gambled in doing so. That was their choice and like the people who chose to invest in the banks, it didn't work out. So explain why anyone who over-borrowed, fudged their income figures, failed to honour commitments on renting out etc deserve the rest of us putting up with the additional costs their recklessness contributed to introducing into the banking system?

We need and needed a functioning banking system, we didn't need to give people a "free" pass at the expense of everyone else.

It worked out well for the bondholders who invested in the banks and the reckless lending worked out ok for the banks being bailed out by the taxpayer.
So well in fact that now when in profit one of them alone has a deferred tax asset of 3 Billion to set against corporation tax.
When I took out my mortgage I had to jump through hoops to get it. That was not the situation during the Celtic Tiger years. Money was being thrown out like snuff at a wake. I know young people who were being encouraged to buy new cars borrowing money that the bank would tag on as their mortgage. God knows what else the banks were encouraging.

Any mortgages being sold to vulture funds should be examined to determine if they conformed to the central bank rules at the time.
Especially this bank who have 28% of their mortgages "under-performing"
And there certainly should be a close examination of their "average" if mortgages "under-performing" for as little as 90 days are included in this proposed knock down sale of 20,000 to a vulture fund.

The state at the expense of the taxpayer protected the banks.
Surely it is not too much to expect the state to take a closer look at these vulture fund sales and perhaps protect some taxpayers from the banks.