Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

Mooooo

Mrsmum wrote: »

Imo things are hardly ever as straightforward as they seem. I was speaking to a farmer I know yesterday. His attitude to this was, effing banks, you can't live with them, you can't live without them. He was saying that he goes into the bank for a loan (regularly), machine broke down, unexpected winter fodder etc. Bank will only give him the small loan he needs, that he can't do without at that moment, provided he will take a bigger loan to develop. That's how banks make their money, by upselling. He needs the loan so is between a rock and a hard place. Therefore it would seem to me that banks are part of the problem with regard to farmers' debts.

Doubt that tbh. Banks give loans based on repayment capacity. Smaller unsecured loans have higher interest rates, larger secured loans have lower interest rates. If they think you won't be able to manage it they won't give it to you simple as that

MrMusician18

MrMusician18 wrote: »

You do know what will happen if the things you suggest above were implemented? There would quite frankly be no retail banking whatsoever. None.

Make all loans non-recourse? Remind us how expensive credit card debt is, and how you'd think that would be fine for a mortgage. It's clowns like you that are putting out ill thought out, stupid and populist ideas that will only lead to ruin.

How expensive is banking when you include the cost of the bailouts?
If they arent punished or made lend responsibly it increased the number of evictions needed - but the banks will always have the law on their side

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

How expensive is banking when you include the cost of the bailouts?
If they arent punished or made lend responsibly it increased the number of evictions needed - but the banks will always have the law on their side

AIB have a tax liability of 3 billion, which they don't have to pay back for 30 years. Should someone lose some teeth?

I imagine all the people on her foaming at the mouth at a liability of 400k just dropped dead.

runawaybishop

Boggles wrote: »

AIB have a tax liability of 3 billion, which they don't have to pay back for 30 years. Should someone lose some teeth?

I imagine all the people on her foaming at the mouth at a liability of 400k just dropped dead.

Couldnt care less. This isn't a thread about AIB.

Fann Linn

runawaybishop wrote: »

Couldnt care less. This isn't a thread about AIB.

Correct. Its just about the small debtor.

Boggles

runawaybishop wrote: »

Couldnt care less. This isn't a thread about AIB.

But but but.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Would you ever **** off. He's had over a decade to pay money and hasn't

You'd imagine you'd be more upset at 3 decades.

Ush1

Boggles wrote: »

But but but.



You'd imagine you'd be more upset at 3 decades.

The whataboutery really knows no bounds.

Sure what about those feckin' priests Joe, awful altogether...

Fr_Dougal

These poor pensioners need our help, I’ve set up a gofundme page for them:

www.gofundme.com/dougalsbarbadosholiday

Please give what you can.

ohnonotgmail

Fann Linn wrote: »

Correct. Its just about the small debtor.

Small?

Suckler

Boggles wrote: »

AIB have a tax liability of 3 billion, which they don't have to pay back for 30 years.

But but but....

runawaybishop

runawaybishop wrote: »

Couldnt care less. This isn't a thread about AIB.

What do you mean 'you couldn't care less'? Some posters are saying the actions of this person are making their mortgages more expensive. The banks activity pre the crash doesn't matter at all then?

FredFunk

Boggles wrote: »

AIB have a tax liability of 3 billion, which they don't have to pay back for 30 years. Should someone lose some teeth?

I imagine all the people on her foaming at the mouth at a liability of 400k just dropped dead.

They engaged, they are paying back. Their lending practices is for another thread.
There doesn't seem to be any record of engagement from this debtor to either the state or the bank.

ohnonotgmail

FredFunk wrote: »

And risk being threatened by the mob? no chance. FB is a no go territory for anybody with common sense and willing to read all the facts.

I had to unfriend somebody on FB last night because they kept posting about these chancers.

Fann Linn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Small?

In contrast to AIB, yes.

eagle eye

EagererBeaver wrote:

A boyo in Roscommon being lawfully evicted from his home for being, well, a thieving ****, is in no way related to the state policy on immigration. To attempt to connect the two is undoubtedly racist. You therefore, are a racist. Pretty ****ing simple to be honest.

As far as I'm aware racism is having the view that another race of people are less important than you. I didn't see that anywhere in his post.

ohnonotgmail

Fann Linn wrote: »

In contrast to AIB, yes.

Well as comparisons go that one is pretty useless. And irrelevant.

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

lads ye all get one vote, regardless of how many boards accounts ye have. the results each election cycle make for cold reading for ye. wise up and take a hint, ye frankly struggle in a scary and confusing modern world and probably deserve pity but maybe lay off the hateful rhetoric it puts ye in very ugly company historically

I'd call this racist, you are telling people here that they are not the same as you but a lesser human.

Maewyn Succat

Mrsmum wrote: »

He might when his back is to the wall. Some people are like that. But say you're right. Better to put them out in July.

July 2005 would have been the right time to evict him.

eagle eye

blueythebear wrote:

if this is the way rural Ireland thinks, then I for one welcome a rural / urban divide.

Discrimination bordering in racism.

runawaybishop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What do you mean 'you couldn't care less'? Some posters are saying the actions of this person are making their mortgages more expensive. The banks activity pre the crash doesn't matter at all then?

What about that thing over there, look!

gnf_ireland

Deleted User wrote: »

If they arent punished or made lend responsibly it increased the number of evictions needed - but the banks will always have the law on their side

I absolutely agree with responsible lending? What constitutes responsible lending - I am guessing 80-90% LTV and 3.5 times Income according to the central bank rules. Pop over to the Accommodation forum and see all the discussion on how to avail of exemptions ?

Absolutely, the banks have legacy issues that need to be dealt with as part of the celtic tiger bust a decade ago. But it was a decade ago at this stage, and the banks and government have been busy kicking the can down the road since then.

This farmer is not a poster boy for anyone. Quite frankly his attitude to repaying money he borrowed is shocking. I would go so far as to say he has contempt for everyone and anyone and believes the world owes him a living. If he engaged with the bank (never mind the revenue) it should never have gone this far.

There are easy ways to get around this, and non-resource lending is not the answer. Any business loan (and that includes farming), needs to ensure the primary residence and land/business are fully separated by folio, and security is on the business asset only. Maximum loan value capped at 60% the average asset price over the last 5 years and capped at 3.5 times the average business net profit/grant payments for the last 5 years.
If land held in the family for more than 1 generation is too toxic to repossess, then it should not be possible to use it as security.

The problem, rightly or wrongly, here is that this level of publicity is going to make it more and more difficult for farmers to get larger loans and in the event they do, the interest rate will be higher due to the risk associated with them.

While i understand the anger, there are many more deserving candidates of peoples support than this farmer. This reminds me of Brian O'Donnell or the Kelly's in Killiney who had a large property portfolio but had not paid anything against their 2m mortgage for years !!

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/deluded-odonnells-owe-71m-but-want-to-keep-mansion-31035382.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/evicted-pair-own-large-property-portfolio-1.504782

Ipso

Ipso wrote: »

Probably the same people complaining about high interest rates.

you know what causes high interest rates? Poor lending practices. You know what perpetuates poor lending practices? Bailouts. You know what increases evictions - poor lending practices.

KBC was bailed out by the Belgians and pumped money into its loss making Irish arm because nearly 50% of their lending was piss poor.

In the long run bailouts perpetuate bailouts too. That`s why the banks must take a cut too.

Hardly whataboutery. Its highly relevant.

runawaybishop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

you know what causes high interest rates? Poor lending practices. You know what perpetuates poor lending practices? Bailouts. You know what increases evictions - poor lending practices.

KBC was bailed out by the Belgians and pumped money into its loss making Irish arm because nearly 50% of their lending was piss poor.

In the long run bailouts perpetuate bailouts too. That`s why the banks must take a cut too.

Hardly whataboutery. Its highly relevant.

But those bankers something something.

It's irrelevant, the lad has debts all over the place. What, exactly, do lending practices have to do with him evading the taxman?

eagle eye

runawaybishop wrote:

The ‘local’ criminals include a CAB target who is originally from Sligo, as well as a notorious crime family operating in north Roscommon.

Mir
E rubbish being fed to the I'd guess. Last night there were over 100 people down there and the large majority if them have never been in trouble in their lives.

Fann Linn wrote:

Dail to discuss amendment to bill with regard to having security firms licensed when dealing with court orders and evictions.

Maybe something positive will come out if this. I won't hold my breath though, might just be worded that way to try and quieten things.

Edgware wrote:

All aboard the Sinn Fein bandwagon. Thankfully some party is against the use of masked men with weapons attacking people and taking the law into their own hands

Well they supported masked men for quite a long time.

cursai

runawaybishop wrote: »

But those bankers something something.

It's irrelevant, the lad has debts all over the place. What, exactly, do lending practices have to do with him evading the taxman?

Debts + half life 3 + EVIL Corp + scroungers = 9/11

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

you know what causes high interest rates? Poor lending practices. You know what perpetuates poor lending practices? Bailouts. You know what increases evictions - poor lending practices.

KBC was bailed out by the Belgians and pumped money into its loss making Irish arm because nearly 50% of their lending was piss poor.

In the long run bailouts perpetuate bailouts too. That`s why the banks must take a cut too.

The thing is though that they didn't lend that poorly in this case. They lent to someone who had a large asset as collateral and under the laws of the land at the time of the loan that asset could be seized in the event of non payment.

It's only poor lending if we retrospectively change our laws and our customs to say that the loan was not in fact secured on the land as previously represented.

The bank will take a cut. It is the outstanding amount plus interest plus costs of repossession, minus the amount the land brings in after sale. If there is a surplus, it will be refunded to the borrowers.

awec

[Deleted User] wrote: »

you know what causes high interest rates? Poor lending practices. You know what perpetuates poor lending practices? Bailouts. You know what increases evictions - poor lending practices.

KBC was bailed out by the Belgians and pumped money into its loss making Irish arm because nearly 50% of their lending was piss poor.

In the long run bailouts perpetuate bailouts too. That`s why the banks must take a cut too.

Hardly whataboutery. Its highly relevant.

What do you propose? Everyone’s mortgage and tax liability forgiven?

Or just those who deliberately cheat the system?

The argument that we can just ignore all financial liabilities cause we bailed out the banks is pretty fcuking dumb.

awec

awec wrote: »

What do you propose? Everyone’s mortgage and tax liability forgiven?

Or just those who deliberately cheat the system?

The argument that we can just ignore all financial liabilities cause we bailed out the banks is pretty fcuking dumb.

If you read the thread you`d see that i agree that is pretty fcuking dumb

gnf_ireland

Deleted User wrote: »

Some posters are saying the actions of this person are making their mortgages more expensive. The banks activity pre the crash doesn't matter at all then?

Just to be clear, both statements have an impact on the mortgage rates in Ireland, and along with a few other behaviours is why we will never see european level interest rates in Ireland. We simply want to have our cake and eat it when it comes to mortgages

1. The cost & duration of enforcing security on a mortgage (secured loan) is exceptionally high in Ireland. This includes legal costs, as well as other costs. These costs are borne directly by the rest of the banks customers. The same applies to the cost of bad debt - there is a risk factor priced into the interest rate to cover any bad debt.

2. The banks have to maintain a level of Capital Adequacy as per agreement from the ECB. This is based on historic experience. A German mortgage is given a 15% weighting whereas a new Irish mortgage has a weighting of 40% (some old Irish mortgages are weighted over 80%). This means the bank has to hold more funds for the mortgages they issue, and this directly impacts their return on equity. Lower return means lower profits

3. Other factors include
(a) we like to avail of cashback in our mortgages which skews interest rates
(b) we don't want to pay arrangement fees for our mortgages like most of Europe
(c) we feel a 10% deposit is high, whereas large chunks of Europe have ~40% deposits

In most of Europe, if you are behind in your mortgage for >6 months, your property is repossessed. In Ireland, if you pay nothing for 10 years you may end up in court, and eventually have an eviction notice served that you then fight on the doorstep.

gctest50

[Deleted User] wrote: »

.......

Hardly whataboutery. Its highly relevant.

What reason could he have for under declaring VAT ?

And then ignoring it so much until he was fined

gctest50

gctest50 wrote: »

What reason could he have for under declaring VAT ?

And then ignoring it so much until he was fined

And still ignored it!

markodaly

STB. wrote: »

ccount.

This government have run this country into the ground. The infrastructure is creaking. Transport, Health and Housing. Key components of society. The levels of personal debt enforced on working people through bailouts will remain with us for a long time.

Aw cop on will ya.

Why are people such snowflakes today?
Almost full employment, pubs and restaurants raking it in, very strong retail sales in the run up to Christmas, yet people are never happy.

The problems in the country stem from the fact there is a cohort of Irish people who are simply retarded, who moan and whinge when debt collectors come calling when money they borrowed goes up in smoke.

We have massive cultural issues in the country, that stops us solving those big issues you mention.

Housing for example. People moan about the terrible plight on young renters and homeless, but they won't be too far long objecting to every bit of development that goes over 3 stories because that is 'high rise'

They also want to build a McMansion in some field in the middle of nowhere, yet decry the death of the towns and villages, when of course they don't' themselves choose to live or shop there.

They will decry any property tax the government will impose on them, stating that its an illegal tax or immoral tax or something.
Lets not even talk about water.

We as a nation are riven with utter stupidity and hypocrisy which prevents us being a grown-up nation, where we look and analyse issues in a grown-up fashion.

gnf_ireland

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The thing is though that they didn't lend that poorly in this case. They lent to someone who had a large asset as collateral and under the laws of the land at the time of the loan that asset could be seized in the event of non payment.

It's only poor lending if we retrospectively change our laws and our customs to say that the loan was not in fact secured on the land as previously represented.

The bank will take a cut. It is the outstanding amount plus interest plus costs of repossession, minus the amount the land brings in after sale. If there is a surplus, it will be refunded to the borrowers.

In this case the bank has taken a cut - KBC has sold the debt to Caboot at no doubt a fraction of its original value. KBC clearly do not want to get directly involved in repossessions, and let others try and get what they can from the person.

I 100% agree with better lending practices - but this would mean less loans and higher interest rates. But more importantly it means higher deposits - so instead of 10-20% for mortgages, it would become 25-40%. Whose interest would that be in? Landlords no doubt, and they are all well behaving fellows ...

The choices are relatively simple when it comes to lending
(a) higher deposits so risk is reduced OR
(b) ability to quickly and efficiently claim security against a loan

If neither of these happen, interest rates will rise !

markodaly

gandalf wrote: »

Serious question here. Given the back story and mob behaviour after the eviction do you think banks are any more likely to deal with bad debtors like Mr McGann themselves or to sell those debts off to vulture funds and let them deal with them.

Up until this I found the idea of vulture funds buying up distressed loans wrong but this whole situation in Strokestown is leading me to reevaluate that feeling. If you have someone who drew down a loan and didn't bother to repay anything off it for 14 years then I think the bank is well within their rights to sell the loan off to another company to recover some of their investment.

That is an excellent point.

The same people who complain about evictions will, of course, complain about vulture funds.

Yet they are too stupid to join the dots and see that almost 10 years after the crash, banks HAVE TO sell off bad loans to these funds because it's almost impossible to evict and regain the collateral tied against the loan.

johnnyskeleton

Boggles wrote: »

AIB have a tax liability of 3 billion, which they don't have to pay back for 30 years. Should someone lose some teeth?

This isn't accurate. They can write off their €3bn loss from the crash over the course of the next 25/30 years profits. Now, whether they should be able to in light of the fact that they were given state money as a bailout is a valid argument. But they are doing no more than what other businesses are entitled to do by writing off previous years' losses.

Danzy

When did FG become so concerned about fiscal probity and the rule of law?

gnf_ireland

gnf_ireland wrote: »

In this case the bank has taken a cut - KBC has sold the debt to Caboot at no doubt a fraction of its original value. KBC clearly do not want to get directly involved in repossessions, and let others try and get what they can from the person.

I 100% agree with better lending practices - but this would mean less loans and higher interest rates. But more importantly it means higher deposits - so instead of 10-20% for mortgages, it would become 25-40%. Whose interest would that be in? Landlords no doubt, and they are all well behaving fellows ...

The choices are relatively simple when it comes to lending
(a) higher deposits so risk is reduced OR
(b) ability to quickly and efficiently claim security against a loan

If neither of these happen, interest rates will rise !

Better vetting reduces the risk (i.e the banks actually doing their job), we did have better lending practices prior to the bubble and ultra low interest rates. A long term view needs to be taken, not just a short term one.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

AIB have a tax liability of 3 billion, which they don't have to pay back for 30 years. Should someone lose some teeth?

I imagine all the people on her foaming at the mouth at a liability of 400k just dropped dead.

AIB have a deferred tax asset of 3 billion - they don't owe any tax.

The asset is the tax rate multiplied by their losses carried forward. Once they have made enough profit to have used up all the losses carried forward they will be paying tax again.

Practically if we made them write that tax asset off today we would probably have to put more capital in to cover that loss. Actual cash spent today vs future cash not collected.

gnf_ireland

markodaly wrote: »

We as a nation are riven with utter stupidity and hypocrisy which prevents us being a grown-up nation, where we look and analyse issues in a grown-up fashion.

Absolutely agree that as a nation we seem to be unable to have a grown up debate on important matters, and look beyond the fact the local politician fixed the road 5 years ago

And all of the above is not helped by the exceptionally short term views of politicians, even before we look at the candidates who run for office..

Take our pension crises as an example. It is an absolute ticking time bomb (like every other country in the western world), but we simply put our heads in the sand and it will go away. Keep increasing the current state pension, despite the fact that it will be completely unaffordable within a decade or two and the ponzi scheme will all come crashing down... Instead we discuss blasphemy

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

AIB have a tax liability of 3 billion, which they don't have to pay back for 30 years. Should someone lose some teeth?

I imagine all the people on her foaming at the mouth at a liability of 400k just dropped dead.

Fann Linn

I see the Castlerea thread has been redacted.

#fakenews

gnf_ireland

Deleted User wrote: »

Better vetting reduces the risk (i.e the banks actually doing their job), we did have better lending practices prior to the bubble and ultra low interest rates. A long term view needs to be taken, not just a short term one.

No, I don't believe we had better vetting back then. What we had was higher interest rates and that itself was a major deterrent to people borrowing money.

The other big difference is that there was an underlying assumption (in rural Ireland at least) that land never falls in value. Same applied to house prices by en large. That meant that in the event security was called on a loan, there was rarely negative equity involved, so the borrower still had skin in the game. It was in their interests to resolve issues quickly, as it would directly hit what was left over.

The other difference in mortgages was the capping based on 2.5 times primary income and 1 time secondary income. Compare that to 3.5 times joint incomes now.

The boom and bust changed all of that. This farmer has nothing left to lose - he has lost it all at this stage (but no detail on where the 100k's went to). He has no skin left in the game so can act the way they choose.

Better vetting reduces the risk - be careful what you wish for. I am sure people would be delighted to be asked for 3 years bank statements instead of 1 years and incomes averaged over 5 years as part of better vetting processes.

Increased vetting would mean tighter lending - which in turn creates different issues. How often do you hear "my rent is higher than my mortgage" would be etc.

BTW - At a personal level, I fully support tighter lending practices, but not everyone would agree with them and they do have knock on effects as well.

Plumbthedepths

Fann Linn wrote:

I see the Castlerea thread has been redacted.

Anyone know why?

Fann Linn

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Anyone know why?

??

Billcarson

markodaly wrote: »

Aw cop on will ya.

Why are people such snowflakes today?
Almost full employment, pubs and restaurants raking it in, very strong retail sales in the run up to Christmas, yet people are never happy.

The problems in the country stem from the fact there is a cohort of Irish people who are simply retarded, who moan and whinge when debt collectors come calling when money they borrowed goes up in smoke.

We have massive cultural issues in the country, that stops us solving those big issues you mention.

Housing for example. People moan about the terrible plight on young renters and homeless, but they won't be too far long objecting to every bit of development that goes over 3 stories because that is 'high rise'

They also want to build a McMansion in some field in the middle of nowhere, yet decry the death of the towns and villages, when of course they don't' themselves choose to live or shop there.

They will decry any property tax the government will impose on them, stating that its an illegal tax or immoral tax or something.
Lets not even talk about water.

We as a nation are riven with utter stupidity and hypocrisy which prevents us being a grown-up nation, where we look and analyse issues in a grown-up fashion.

So we should all just be good little sheep. We will just ignore all the corruption that goes on. This country is rotten to the core. There are people out there struggling to make ends meet. You are clearly delusional if you think why should people should be complaining . The cost of living keeps rising etc etc. Near full employment , working but still finding it hard to make ends meet. People are being turned into slaves basically. But sure we will just take it anyway sure why not

nthclare

This is the tip of the iceberg.

Wait until the next bust.

I'd say 10% of the working population has a secure enough job to take out a mortgage.
It's win win for the financial sector.

Everything is wrapped up in red tape and contradiction.

Most financial sector job's, factories, retail businesses, the IT sector, the construction industry, none of these can foresee people lasting 35 year's in job.

But yet the banks give out mortgages to people who haven't secure jobs.

It's all speculation and bull****, a dog with a mallet up his arse knows most people are having the wool pulled over their eye's.

Guard's can't even afford mortgages now, while back in the 80's and 90's a guard or prison officer could get a good mortgage support a family of 5
Now people can hardly live a humble lifestyle.

AIB suggested during 2003 I invest 180,000 inheritance in shares, and take out a mortgage instead of buying a house for cash.

I bought the house for cash, another family member did the investment and got the mortgage.

Who's living in heartbreak hotel now ?

Guy's in suit's working for guy's in suit's...

gnf_ireland

Billcarson wrote: »

There are people out there struggling to make ends meet. You are clearly delusional if you think why should people should be complaining . The cost of living keeps rising etc etc. Near full employment , working but still finding it hard to make ends meet. People are being turned into slaves basically. But sure we will just take it anyway sure why not

I don't think anyone is saying people do not have a right to protest or try and change things.
If you look at the yellow vests in France - same time of underlying resentment growing and growing over a number of decades and now it has exploded.

Yes all of the above needs to be resolved....

BUT having a farmer who has an issue with paying anyone including local businesses, revenue or banks back is not the poster boy for the campaign. He (and his like) are a major part of the problem rather than the solution..

markodaly

Billcarson wrote: »

So we should all just be good little sheep. We will just ignore all the corruption that goes on. This country is rotten to the core. There are people out there struggling to make ends meet. You are clearly delusional if you think why should people should be complaining . The cost of living keeps rising etc etc. Near full employment , working but still finding it hard to make ends meet. People are being turned into slaves basically. But sure we will just take it anyway sure why not

Yawn, blah blah...
Change the record...

Ireland is, in fact, one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Don't let facebook 'news' change the actual facts.

Again, why are people such snowflakes today? Everyone has a sob story to tell. Tell it to someone who gives a crap.

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

Aw cop on will ya.

Why are people such snowflakes today?
Almost full employment, pubs and restaurants raking it in, very strong retail sales in the run up to Christmas, yet people are never happy.

The problems in the country stem from the fact there is a cohort of Irish people who are simply retarded, who moan and whinge when debt collectors come calling when money they borrowed goes up in smoke.

We have massive cultural issues in the country, that stops us solving those big issues you mention.

Housing for example. People moan about the terrible plight on young renters and homeless, but they won't be too far long objecting to every bit of development that goes over 3 stories because that is 'high rise'

They also want to build a McMansion in some field in the middle of nowhere, yet decry the death of the towns and villages, when of course they don't' themselves choose to live or shop there.

They will decry any property tax the government will impose on them, stating that its an illegal tax or immoral tax or something.
Lets not even talk about water.

We as a nation are riven with utter stupidity and hypocrisy which prevents us being a grown-up nation, where we look and analyse issues in a grown-up fashion.

It starts from the top down. Bertie's ridiculous give away budgets in the noughties to Leo's 'I'm gonna give ya five years of tax cuts', despite the government worrying about the implications of Brexit at the same time.

gnf_ireland

nthclare wrote: »

AIB suggested during 2003 I invest 180,000 inheritance in shares, and take out a mortgage instead of buying a house for cash.

I bought the house for cash, another family member did the investment and got the mortgage.

Well done for having the strength to stay with your convictions. The problem here is banks cannot give financial advice - they are not independent

If someone wants or needs financial advice, they need to go to someone completely independent and pay for it. If they are not paying for it, they are simply going to a salesperson who is getting remunerated via commission

But I agree with you regarding the next bust - it will not be pretty for a lot of people