The McNamaras, €2.9M debt write-off, some deal!

jmayo

Hoboo wrote: »

And this is why economics shouldn't be discussed in pubs. Clueless.

As was shown by the mess made out of the financial system, both here and elsewhere, the supposed professionally trained (often ivy league) economists had often less cop on than the guys down the pub.

And as transpired subsequently had a lot less ethical and moral character to boot.

NoteAgent wrote: »

I don't see how this is their fault. It was the bank that took the risk that the couple's after tax earnings could service the loan. They couldn't so its the banks fault and therefore the bank that will take the hit - as it should be.

But hey - don't miss a good opportunity to have a go at someone who has more than you have.

Fooks sake.
Have we learned absolutely nothing ?

NoteAgent wrote: »

Yep. Journal.ie comment section as I call them.

Everything is the politicians fault.
or landlords fault.
or wealthy people's fault.

What they don't realise is that the day they start taking personal responsibility for themselves is the day they start their journey to becoming wealthy.

So somewhere between 10.24 to 10.37 you come to the realisation that personal responsibility plays a part. :rolleyes:

Or does that only apply to people who complain ?

kennethsmyth

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Borrow millions in the hope of making millions more, then when it all goes tits up walk away from your debts and get a free gaff too. Yeah :rolleyes:



Every bank customer and everyone with a mortgage or looking for one will suffer because of this carry on.




It also says they owe well over €2m on this "500k" home. I wonder who did that 500k valuation, and when.




Do you mean financially, or morally?

Yep that valuation of 500k is way off, that house and environs even in Meath is about 700k-800k

Hotblack Desiato

Do they even have to pay a mortgage on the 500k? Are they really paying nothing at all going forward?

Portsalon

Squiggle wrote: »

Tanager would have fared worse if McNamara and Lowe had gone bankrupt. With the PIA Tanager will receive 27c in the euro, with a bankruptcy it would have been 22c in the euro. PIAs are all about the Maths, but that wouldn't be the popular narrative.

Would they not also have got the McNamara/Lowe gaff?

James Brown

lola85 wrote: »

You’d be the first giving out about vulture funds and house repossessions or Noonan.

What’s changed?

Absolutely nothing. Some folk need get off the idea that things are black and white. They most certainly are not. There is a vast difference between someone who is on a lower/no income trying to hold onto their home while making an effort, (if failing giving the tax payer a hotel bill) as compared to not engaging or making any payments with debts in the millions. Do you honestly not see that?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Absolutely nothing. Some folk need get off the idea that things are black and white. They most certainly are not. There is a vast difference between someone who is on a lower/no income trying to hold onto their home while making an effort, (if failing giving the tax payer a hotel bill) as compared to not engaging or making any payments with debts in the millions. Do you honestly not see that?

Actually there is less difference between the likes of McNamara and your example than there is between both of them and the homeless and the renting.

In your example, people are trying to hold onto a property that they will own, it is only different in degree to McNamara.

It is a whole different world for those who are homeless or who are renting or in local authority housing. As someone who is left-of-centre, I cannot condone anyone being allowed to hold on their home when they won't pay their mortgage. There are plenty of people out there, particularly young people, who could afford a mortgage, but who are being denied the chance by the parasitical behaviour of those who try every trick to unjustly keep their house.

Quite frankly, I am amazed at the number of posters who claim to be left-wing but who are so strongly defending the property-owning classes. It is as Irish as it comes.

victory65

The elites look after themselves..
The Judge takes care off the Barrister..!! What a corrupt country we live in..! If you or I owed a € to the banks, we would be halled before the courts, and imprisoned with our house reprocessed.. No questions asked..

blanch152

victory65 wrote: »

The elites look after themselves..
The Judge takes care off the Barrister..!! What a corrupt country we live in..! If you or I owed a € to the banks, we would be halled before the courts, and imprisoned with our house reprocessed.. No questions asked..

That simply isn't true. Ireland has one of the lowest repossession rates in the OECD. And those low repossession rates are contributing to a burden on the young.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/defaulters-cost-other-mortgage-holders-250-a-month-1.3736146

https://www.bonkers.ie/blog/mortgages/heres-why-mortgage-rates-in-ireland-are-so-high/

Older people like McNamara, the people involved in the Roscommon case etc. are benefitting to the disadvantage of the young and those trying to buy their first house.

As I keep saying, why aren't the left-wing parties in particular more outspoken on this?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Actually there is less difference between the likes of McNamara and your example than there is between both of them and the homeless and the renting.

In your example, people are trying to hold onto a property that they will own, it is only different in degree to McNamara.

It is a whole different world for those who are homeless or who are renting or in local authority housing. As someone who is left-of-centre, I cannot condone anyone being allowed to hold on their home when they won't pay their mortgage. There are plenty of people out there, particularly young people, who could afford a mortgage, but who are being denied the chance by the parasitical behaviour of those who try every trick to unjustly keep their house.

Quite frankly, I am amazed at the number of posters who claim to be left-wing but who are so strongly defending the property-owning classes. It is as Irish as it comes.

There you are Blanch

Nope. I said people trying to pay. I believe the McNamaras hadn't been paying for some time? It's the difference between trying and entitlement IMO.

Onto your side track, (I get it, when you've no material it's easier to change the subject).
As a tax payer I would rather someone try hold on to their home by engaging as best they can with the bank and aided by the state if needed, rather than add another family to the homeless list and us having to pay for a hotel.

I don't see Frank and Theresa knocking in to Focus point or staying in a HAP.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There you are Blanch

Nope. I said people trying to pay. I believe the McNamaras hadn't been paying for some time? It's the difference between trying and entitlement IMO.

Onto your side track, (I get it, when you've no material it's easier to change the subject).
As a tax payer I would rather someone try hold on to their home by engaging as best they can with the bank and aided by the state if needed, rather than add another family to the homeless list and us having to pay for a hotel.

I don't see Frank and Theresa knocking in to Focus point or staying in a HAP.

I am going to ask you a straight question and let's see if you can duck and dive again.

Are you happy with Ireland's repossession laws that allow the likes of McNamara and the Roscommon chancers to keep their properties without making any attempt to pay?

It seems to me that you want different laws for the rich and for the less rich property owners (I won't call them poor as you are not poor if you qualify for a mortgage), while the real poor - the renters and the homeless - can look in the windows at "ordinary" folk keeping their free houses at the expense of the taxpayer.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I am going to ask you a straight question and let's see if you can duck and dive again.

Are you happy with Ireland's repossession laws that allow the likes of McNamara and the Roscommon chancers to keep their properties without making any attempt to pay?

It seems to me that you want different laws for the rich and for the less rich property owners (I won't call them poor as you are not poor if you qualify for a mortgage), while the real poor - the renters and the homeless - can look in the windows at "ordinary" folk keeping their free houses at the expense of the taxpayer.

Firstly you are inferring I've ducked and dived before, which is completely false.
Here you are asking a question, answering it for me and then criticising that answer. Amazing.

If people are making some form of payment or attempt to engage to work out some reduced payment based on finances, they deserve leeway and support. The alternative being another burden for the tax payer. This goes equally for anyone IMO. If you are willfully not paying your mortgage even though you might be able to pay something, you don't deserves any sympathy IMO.

Now Frank and Theresa, to my understanding had gone some time without making any payments and got millions in debt written off. I don't like that kind of thing. Do you?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Firstly you are inferring I've ducked and dived before, which is completely false.
Here you are asking a question, answering it for me and then criticising that answer. Amazing.

If people are making some form of payment or attempt to engage to work out some reduced payment based on finances, they deserve leeway and support. The alternative being another burden for the tax payer. This goes equally for anyone IMO. If you are willfully not paying your mortgage even though you might be able to pay something, you don't deserves any sympathy IMO.

Now Frank and Theresa, to my understanding had gone some time without making any payments and got millions in debt written off. I don't like that kind of thing. Do you?

Absolutely not, I don't like it, I have been quite clear on that.

On the rest, as I have pointed out, you can't have one law for the rich and another law for the slightly less rich. You say that if someone is making some form of "attempt to engage to work out some reduced payment based on finances, they deserve leeway and support". Well, that is exactly what Frank and Theresa did. They made an attempt to engage, worked something out, and got to keep their house. They did so in a way that you approve of - the PIA.

I fundamentally disagree with the whole process.

I find it very hard to understand how you can criticise the McNamaras and defend the PIA process. There is a cognitive dissonance at the heart of that position.

Hotblack Desiato

So let me get this straight....

You're a private tenant and you stop paying. You will be evicted within a year or so at the most and no-one will shed a tear.

You're an average mortgage holder and stop paying. After a few years you will either be evicted or end up staying on a rental basis, you will NOT own the house.

You're a property speculator with millions in bad debt and you stop paying. After 9 or 10 years you get a judge to wipe out all your debts and let you stay mortgage-free in your free gaff...!

Allinall

victory65 wrote: »

The elites look after themselves..
The Judge takes care off the Barrister..!! What a corrupt country we live in..! If you or I owed a € to the banks, we would be halled before the courts, and imprisoned with our house reprocessed.. No questions asked..

Eh... no we wouldn’t.

lola85

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So let me get this straight....

You're a private tenant and you stop paying. You will be evicted within a year or so at the most and no-one will shed a tear.

You're an average mortgage holder and stop paying. After a few years you will either be evicted or end up staying on a rental basis, you will NOT own the house.

You're a property speculator with millions in bad debt and you stop paying. After 9 or 10 years you get a judge to wipe out all your debts and let you stay mortgage-free in your free gaff...!

And if you’re a local authority tenant stop paying and you will NEVER be evicted.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Absolutely not, I don't like it, I have been quite clear on that.

On the rest, as I have pointed out, you can't have one law for the rich and another law for the slightly less rich. You say that if someone is making some form of "attempt to engage to work out some reduced payment based on finances, they deserve leeway and support". Well, that is exactly what Frank and Theresa did. They made an attempt to engage, worked something out, and got to keep their house. They did so in a way that you approve of - the PIA.

I fundamentally disagree with the whole process.

I find it very hard to understand how you can criticise the McNamaras and defend the PIA process. There is a cognitive dissonance at the heart of that position.

I quite clearly laid out my thoughts on it and I stand by them.
I don't like such people having millions in debt written off while they stay in the house and we've people becoming homeless over thousands. And the burden then becomes the tax payers while the vulture fund, Noonan or whom ever go about their private profit making at a cost to the tax payer.

lola85 wrote: »

And if you’re a local authority tenant stop paying and you will NEVER be evicted.

They should be. What's your alternative put everyone up in hotels?

LaLa2004

dubrov wrote: »

That wouldn't work.

They clearly still have access to money but it is out of reach of the bank.

Belvedere College is on the list of creditors. I didn’t think you’d get a timetable if you hadn’t paid fees.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/unbelievable-deal-frank-mcnamara-and-theresa-lowe-to-have-2-9m-in-debt-written-off-38420446.html

Raconteuse

Hoboo wrote: »

OUTRAGE!!!!!!

Best of luck to them. If anything it will help others in the same situation. I'm not sure why anyone should be sickened (other than jealousy at the thoughts of someone getting more than them)

Is criticism of unfairness jealousy now?

With the above and a subsequent comment, you seem like you're just trying to provoke, nothing more.

smelly sock wrote: »

Good for them. Hopefully they can move on from this.

You too.

"Best of luck to them", "good for them". Such bizarre sycophancy.

Some working class folk cite this "middle-class" bogeyman, but they have a lot more in common than they'd like to admit.

Both the working class and middle-class are in the middle. It's elements either side who are taking the piss.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I quite clearly laid out my thoughts on it and I stand by them.
I don't like such people having millions in debt written off while they stay in the house and we've people becoming homeless over thousands. And the burden then becomes the tax payers while the vulture fund, Noonan or whom ever go about their private profit making at a cost to the tax payer.

Yes, indeed you have clearly laid out your thoughts. You want people to be able to keep their houses even when they can't pay their mortgage or only pay a little bit so long as they aren't McNamara or Lowe (or Noonan or some other member of the "elite").

I see a cognitive dissonance and a hypocrisy at the heart of that argument and I am pointing it out.

As for people becoming homeless over thousands, I have provided evidence and links to show that Ireland has the lowest repossession rates in Europe, so the evidence doesn't back you up on that one. Every homeless case we have seen, from Jonathan Corrie who had two houses to Margaret Cash who had been evicted several times to the O'Donnells of Gorse Hill has been the opposite of the kind of case you are talking about.

AndrewJRenko

LaLa2004 wrote: »

Belvedere College is on the list of creditors. I didn’t think you’d get a timetable if you hadn’t paid fees.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/unbelievable-deal-frank-mcnamara-and-theresa-lowe-to-have-2-9m-in-debt-written-off-38420446.html

They probably started out paying, and then stopped once all the kids had their places, with a good sob story about how it is all going to come right soon. This puts the school in a real bind.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, indeed you have clearly laid out your thoughts. You want people to be able to keep their houses even when they can't pay their mortgage or only pay a little bit so long as they aren't McNamara or Lowe (or Noonan or some other member of the "elite").

I see a cognitive dissonance and a hypocrisy at the heart of that argument and I am pointing it out.

As for people becoming homeless over thousands, I have provided evidence and links to show that Ireland has the lowest repossession rates in Europe, so the evidence doesn't back you up on that one. Every homeless case we have seen, from Jonathan Corrie who had two houses to Margaret Cash who had been evicted several times to the O'Donnells of Gorse Hill has been the opposite of the kind of case you are talking about.

Not clearly enough for you. You are purposefully misinterpreting my clearly laid out opinion on it to suit your little digs.

Just for you:

Matt Barrett wrote: »

......
If people are making some form of payment or attempt to engage to work out some reduced payment based on finances, they deserve leeway and support. The alternative being another burden for the tax payer. This goes equally for anyone IMO. If you are willfully not paying your mortgage even though you might be able to pay something, you don't deserves any sympathy IMO.....

Evidence on what? Are you suggesting nobody has lost a house due to non payment? Or are you just attempting to play it down for reasons best known to yourself? 'Nothing to see here move along'?
The McNamara thing doesn't happen every day of the week either but the comparison has been made to others on lower incomes in the same boat. You are trying to divert as per.
Now you are using the permanently outraged go-to of the FF/FG voters, (not you, speaking generally about others) of individual newspaper stories regarding chancers like they represent everyone who avails of social housing, yet you've issue with the rest of us commenting on same among our betters? Hypocrisy much? Nobody is saying the McNamara's are like all wealthy home owners, whereas you seem to be suggesting whataboutery on anyone poor or on a low income may be a chancer. All chancers should be treated equally.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not clearly enough for you. You are purposefully misinterpreting my clearly laid out opinion on it to suit your little digs.

Just for you:



Evidence on what? Are you suggesting nobody has lost a house due to non payment? Or are you just attempting to play it down for reasons best known to yourself? 'Nothing to see here move along'?
The McNamara thing doesn't happen every day of the week either but the comparison has been made to others on lower incomes in the same boat. You are trying to divert as per.
Now you are using the permanently outraged go-to of the FF/FG voters, (not you, speaking generally about others) of individual newspaper stories regarding chancers like they represent everyone who avails of social housing, yet you've issue with the rest of us commenting on same among our betters? Hypocrisy much? Nobody is saying the McNamara's are like all wealthy home owners, whereas you seem to be suggesting whataboutery on anyone poor or on a low income may be a chancer. All chancers should be treated equally.

I am not misinterpreting your clearly-laid out opinion, I am dissecting it.

This is what you said:

"If people are making some form of payment or attempt to engage to work out some reduced payment based on finances, they deserve leeway and support."

The McNamaras were making some kind of effort!!!

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/debt-writeoff-how-frank-mcnamara-and-theresa-lowe-returned-to-spotlight-for-wrong-reasons-38422319.html

"They remortgaged properties and sold others in an attempt to escape what they saw as temporary financial difficulties."

And then they used the PIA process

"To avoid losing their home the couple applied for a personal insolvency arrangement (PIA), a formal debt write-off deal that has to be approved by the courts. With a successfully PIA the family home is usually retained."

They even lost a pension:

"The couple will hand over €210,000 from an inheritance and a pension."

That fully meets your conditions that if people are making some form of payment or attempt to engage to work out some reduced payment based on finances, they deserve leeway and support.

Now here is where it gets weird. You go on to say in another post:

"I don't like such people having millions in debt written off while they stay in the house and we've people becoming homeless over thousands."

If you can't see the cognitive dissonance at the heart of that, I can't explain it any further.

Next, when presented with the evidence that Ireland has the lowest rate of repossessions in Western Europe, you still persist with the statement that we've people becoming homeless over thousands. There is no evidence of this, all the evidence says the opposite, yet you continue to post nonsense like that.

Finally, let me be absolutely clear. I have no sympathy for McNamara. He bought a house, he took out a mortgage, he should pay his debts or lose his house. Furthermore, I don't play favourites like you. If anyone else takes out a mortgage and doesn't pay their debts, then they should lose their house. What you don't understand (or maybe you don't know because you never had a mortgage) is that any ordinary sensible person taking out a mortgage takes the sensible option of ensuring that they have mortgage protection cover, not just for if they die, but also for if they get ill or lose their job.



P.S. This is not a dig at you, it is an analysis of your posts.

blanch152

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They probably started out paying, and then stopped once all the kids had their places, with a good sob story about how it is all going to come right soon. This puts the school in a real bind.

What generally happens is that people keep paying a little bit, just enough to prevent their child being expelled, and fall further and further behind in payments to the school.

Same as how they behave with mortgage payments.

This type of behaviour isn't exclusive to media darlings. It is a common feature of all these types of cases.

vriesmays

blanch152 wrote: »

Finally, let me be absolutely clear. I have no sympathy for McNamara.

I have sympathy for Handel's Messiah. It was like letting RTE's Don Conry repaint over the Mona Lisa.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

.....
P.S. This is not a dig at you, it is an analysis of your posts.

And they didn't pay for a long time and had millions written off and still get to remain in the house. I don't like it. Neither do you.
You drew comparisons towards groups fighting against evictions for non-payment.
I said if people are making an effort they should be given some leeway.
This is not hypocrisy. The McNamara's had a number of family homes worth of debt written off when others lose their only property, their home over owing less than the McNamara's had written off. I don't like that.

To me on a bigger picture it's another kick in the nuts for the average working tax payer. On an RTE theme, it's the likes of Gaybo and us bailing out his loses in shares and the McNamara's having millions written off, are these the people who really went mad or partied buying in and borrowing more than they could afford to lose? Of should we still be pointing at people who might have made similar errors but for a family home, not properties or shares in a bank?

AndrewJRenko

lola85 wrote: »

And if you’re a local authority tenant stop paying and you will NEVER be evicted.

Except that's not true. Here's the report on the seven evictions in Cork last year;


https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/when-tenants-choose-to-abuse-the-roof-over-their-heads-823960.html

holyhead

Why did a music arranger and former TV presenter turned barrister see the need to buy investment properties. Surely their joint income would have seen them live a comfortable life style. Whatever the motive their judgment was poor.
I think their personal insolvency application should have been turned down due to the reason for needing it in the first place. It should only be for those who lost their job and are struggling to keep their family home due to mortgage arrears.
Tanager are entitled to every last penny the McNamara's owe them. Their PIA is an insult. The judge was misguided in writing off their debt given how it arose in the first place.

TheRiverman

Disgraceful decision by the judge to write off this debt.

Bass Reeves

The nature of the banking business is to take short cuts. Back in the noughties all banks were getting those that borrowed to sign personal guarantees. This saved the banks the hassle of investigating if there was risk involved. A lot of money was lend that should not have been

Another issue was that as opposed to the USA in particular property lending was not non recourse. The reason the taxpayer is picking up the bill is not that just the government guaranteed the bank's debt it also guaranteed the bondholders. That was where the f@@kup was.
Personnel guarantee should never have incompassed the family home. Neither should spouse's have been expected to sign on the line personnel guarantees for business lending. It was lazy banking.
When the bust came Irish insolvency law was 30 years behind other jurisdictions. That is why some such as Ivan Yates went to the UK to sort debt difficulties.
There is something stupid about putting up a family home again business debt. I did it and survived but some of it us stupid. All property lending should be non recourse. Banks should investigate who they lend money for property to and not use lazy business practices to absolve themselves of responsibility for lending practices

nthclare

TheRiverman wrote: »

Disgraceful decision by the judge to write off this debt.

He was right, absolutely necessary to write off these people's debt.

They're good looking, articulate and to be looked up at.
How dare anyone say anything otherwise.

They knew all along they were going to get away with it.
Hang around in certain circles in Ireland and you'll have it very cushy that's for sure.

I know people are annoyed with the situation but it was inevitable they're on the gravy train..