Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Mortgage debt forgiveness is here, Dublin nurse gets €152k debt write-down

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    Solair wrote: »
    Yeah, but it's a bit like the difference between a weather forecast done by a professional meteorologist using all the best tools available and some guy in the pub going "Woohoo! It's going to be sunny forever - I'm burning all my winter clothes and investing in shorts and suncream!"

    And if the guy burned all his clothes, he wouldn't be banging on the meteorologists door demanding he buy some trousers, because he made the decision. Unless what you are saying is that people apart from banks are completely stupid and should be protected from themselves like children.


  • Options
    #63
    Rabidlamb
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭Rabidlamb


    Story next week:

    Galway nurse finds love of her life & gets mortgage in his name for a fraction of what people like her paid.
    Probably best if he doesn't marry her for a few years anyway.


  • Options
    #64
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    Lads/Ladies, to be quite honest - I think I am wasting my breath / finger energy even debating this here. You all seem to think the Irish banks were competent, totally responsible, prudent lenders and entirely the innocent party and that they were held-up by some awful mob of crazy consumers all of whom (unlike those in the rest of the world) were financial geniuses.

    Good luck! I'm keeping myself mobile for a quick exit from Ireland when the massive pile of smelly brown steamy stuff does eventually hit the fan fully. Its only sucking in a bit of a bad smell so far.


  • Options
    #65
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    I think when someone cant pay their mortgage, say 300,000euro and they have gone through all of the processes leading up to repossession and the bank sells the house for 200,000 the other 100,000 should be written off. You cant get blood out of a stone and the person has suffered enough. This to me is a substantial deterrent.


  • Options
    #66
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    Solair wrote: »
    You all seem to think the Irish banks were competent, prudent lenders.
    Who thinks that?
    Nobody posted it, or anything like it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Solair wrote: »
    Yeah, but it's a bit like the difference between a weather forecast done by a professional meteorologist using all the best tools available and some guy in the pub going "Woohoo! It's going to be sunny forever - I'm burning all my winter clothes and investing in shorts and suncream!"
    Weather forecasting is based on current information. It's not about predicting the future. Additionally, weather modelling is rather simpler than economic modelling; and yet how often is the weather forecast wrong? How are they at predicting next year's weather?

    Listen - I agree with you that the banks made a balls of their forecasts. But from what I've heard - with the assumptions they made - 95% of mortgages were appropriately granted. Trying to put all the blame on the banks is just pure nonsense, a tactic for those who are trying to deny their own responsibility for their situation.

    I seem to recall - and perhaps others here do too - that there were a hell of a lot of complaints during the bubble about banks not lending people enough, and very few about them lending too little.


  • Options
    #68
    daltonmd
    Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    What would have been involved in such an assessment that did not require knowledge of future events?

    I think they lent (and continue to lend) at multiples that are too high, but there's no bad lending without bad borrowing.


    And there's no drug dealing without junkies - what should we do, kill the junkies? Pleny more behind them though.

    As I said in another thread - Definition of moral hazard

    "Lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences".

    For too long the banks have been protected from those consequences given our archaic bankruptcy laws - and still we wait for the new ones.

    Re: Underlined - they have to keep the junkie chain constant.

    There's still too much glare on the individual - we are taking an individual against a banking system, a banking sytem that was poorly regulated, a banking system where bonuses were paid based on how much the bank lent to customers.

    You asked whether or not the banks had crystal balls - why?
    Did they need one? Eh, no. They lend X amount and they get a nice bonus - f*** it if the customer can't pay it back for 30 years, if at all - what do they care, their income is based on the loan not on the payback..

    Yet people absolutely believe that the large majority of people who bought homes, based on income that they had then (as opposed to the bonus on a total loan repaid over 30 years) are 100% responsible and the banks are not - are these people really taking the sides of the banks? I've said it before - I never thought I'd see the day.

    What happened with this nurse was predicted by many, what has happened and what will continue to happen, does not need a crystal ball.

    People will get to a point where they will just say - "I can't and don't want to do this anymore - take your house and do your worst".
    In doing this it has been absolutely proven that the banks would rather get some money back than none.


  • Options
    #69
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    I don't have a mortgage myself, nor do my folks, so absolutely not a vested interest looking for mortgage write-downs.

    I just observed the industry and the banks are HUGELY to blame for this.

    Obviously there are a lot of small-time developer cases where it was just greed i.e. the property flippers with several houses who just got greedy and bit off more than they can chew.

    But for example, my folks had regular phone calls from their bank trying to convince them to help buy houses for me + my siblings by using their family home as collateral and that was totally unsolicited and from a bank manager! The same manager used to post them out property portfolios (unsolicited) write to them / ring them suggesting they invest in various apartment blocks etc etc.

    My mom would be approached by the manager in the branch when doing normal day-to-day banking, with a big "would you not consider releasing some of the equity in that house - it must be worth a fortune - you could invest in blah blah.."

    Had they agreed to any of this, they would have been up the creek without a paddle at this stage, but instead they are comfortable, have a decent house that they worked hard to buy & pay off over the last 30+ years and are debt-free.

    The Irish banks were nothing but snake-oil sales people in my opinion.

    Once the branch manager was turned into a salesperson and was being driven by mortgage lending targets, that was the beginning of the end.

    I just hope that our regulation system grows a pair and does things like preventing mortgage lenders from acting as brokers, financial advisers, or in small towns they were even the damn estate agent! (agencies for the building societies)


  • Options
    #70
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    And if the guy burned all his clothes, he wouldn't be banging on the meteorologists door demanding he buy some trousers, because he made the decision. Unless what you are saying is that people apart from banks are completely stupid and should be protected from themselves like children.

    How about the scenario - professional meteorologists predict an unprecedented spell of hot weather will continue indefinitely. These meteorologists also have the monopoly on the sale of shorts, sunglasses, sunscreen, decking, swimming pools and sandals.
    Man believes the professionals - burns/sells/donates his winter clothes to charity and buys hot weather paraphernalia (at vastly inflated prices) from the meteorologists. It then rains, nonstop, for 400 days and nights. All of the meteorologist equipment is destroyed in the deluge and has to be replaced by the State at a cost of a million squillion euro. To raise this money, the State imposes tax on umbrellas, guttering, waterproofs, wellies, towels and heating.

    Small businesses are closing due to flood damage. Medium businesses are scaling down as they can no longer get insurance for flood damage.

    Now - it's all the man's fault as he should have realised he lives in Ireland and the meteorologists cannot be taken to task as, hey - they were just doing their jobs...


  • Options
    #71
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    This:
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Man believes the professionals - burns/sells/donates his winter clothes to charity and buys hot weather paraphernalia (at vastly inflated prices) from the meteorologists.

    Is the man's fault.

    This:
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    All of the meteorologist equipment is destroyed in the deluge and has to be replaced by the State at a cost of a million squillion euro. To raise this money, the State imposes tax on umbrellas, guttering, waterproofs, wellies, towels and heating.
    Is the meteorologists' fault.

    This:
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Small businesses are closing due to flood damage. Medium businesses are scaling down as they can no longer get insurance for flood damage.
    Is the businesses owners' fault.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    AVERAGE persons are incredibly naive re finance,every week theres someone on the radio ,i put all my money in buying shares in banks,or 1 company, now i lost 90 per cent of my savings.
    I worked all my life now all i,ve got is the state pension.Thats what they say.
    TEN years ago irish bank shares were a solid aa rated investment.
    or look at 70 year old people buying 30 year investment bonds, ie the chances are you will be dead before you can make any profit.


  • Options
    #73
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Gurgle wrote: »
    This:


    Is the man's fault.

    This:

    Is the meteorologists' fault.

    This:

    Is the businesses owners' fault.

    But - the man is paying through increased taxation to cover the cost of the bit you say was the meteorologists fault while also paying them for the stuff he bought from them even as those in charge of the Met Office are getting bonuses - which come out of the tax the man is paying and the money he is paying to clear his debts.


  • Options
    #74
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    daltonmd wrote: »
    You asked whether or not the banks had crystal balls - why?
    Did they need one? Eh, no. They lend X amount and they get a nice bonus - f*** it if the customer can't pay it back for 30 years, if at all - what do they care, their income is based on the loan not on the payback..
    I've yet to be shown examples where lenders could not have been reasonably expected to make their payments based on the information they supplied to the banks at the time of the loan.

    Lots of talk about it, but no examples. So this is a purely rhetorical point until such examples are forthcoming.


  • Options
    #75
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    How about the scenario - professional meteorologists predict an unprecedented spell of hot weather will continue indefinitely.
    Global warming? Yes, perhaps they are wrong about that too.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    These meteorologists also have the monopoly on the sale of shorts, sunglasses, sunscreen, decking, swimming pools and sandals.
    I'm not sure where your analogy is going here. Banks didn't have a monopoly on property - our fellow citizens did, for the most part.


  • Options
    #76
    amen
    Registered Users Posts: 2,781 ✭✭✭amen


    The MET office don't often get it right, they hide this fact by either giving retrospective forecasts or forecasting everything.
    A bit off topic but I couldn't let this go.

    Can you provide data to support this statement ?


  • Options
    #77
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    But - the man is paying through increased taxation to cover the cost of the bit you say was the meteorologists fault while also paying them for the stuff he bought from them even as those in charge of the Met Office are getting bonuses - which come out of the tax the man is paying and the debts he is paying off.
    Yep. And that's completely unfair.

    But 95% of people put their winter clothes and wet weather gear in the attic, while the other 5% (including this guy) got rid of theirs.

    Why should the 95%, who are already paying for the Met Office losses, also take on the losses of the naive fools who took Met Office predictions as a pre-ordained future?


  • Options
    #78
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    riclad wrote: »
    AVERAGE persons are incredibly naive re finance,every week theres someone on the radio ,i put all my money in buying shares in banks,or 1 company, now i lost 90 per cent of my savings.
    I worked all my life now all i,ve got is the state pension.Thats what they say.
    TEN years ago irish bank shares were a solid aa rated investment.
    or look at 70 year old people buying 30 year investment bonds, ie the chances are you will be dead before you can make any profit.
    And this is...whose fault? If I gamble all my money away at the race track, is it my fault? The bookies' fault? The horses'? The system that allows me to gamble?

    If people couldn't be arsed spending a day or two doing research before borrowing hundreds of thousands, they really deserve everything they get.


  • Options
    #79
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    amen wrote: »
    Can you provide data to support this statement ?
    http://www.breakingnews.ie/weather/leinster/
    Leinster today
    Any lingering rain will soon clear from southernmost counties. This will leave a predominantly dry day with variable amounts of cloud and some sunshine. There will be a chance of a few well scattered showers breaking out by the afternoon, particularly in more northern counties.
    Predominantly dry except for when its raining.


  • Options
    #80
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    There must be loads of single people out there, my mortgage is 200k,my house is worth 100k, i,d be happy to give it to the bank .Sell
    the house for 100 ,pay the bank 20k, thats a great deal.
    You are saving 80k,plus 25 years interest on 80k.

    Rent A flat for 3 years,then maybe buy a house for 70k.
    The point i,m making is the average person is incredible ignorant of finance ,how loans work,interest rates etc


  • Options
    #81
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I've yet to be shown examples where lenders could not have been reasonably expected to make their payments based on the information they supplied to the banks at the time of the loan.

    Lots of talk about it, but no examples. So this is a purely rhetorical point until such examples are forthcoming.

    Woman I worked with - she was a mature student in her late 40s who worked 19 hours a week for 25,000 P.A. She was given a mortgage for 250,000 in 2006. Ten times her income.

    Post-grad mature student in early 40s - income of 22,000 a year - given 100% mortgage for 225,000 in 2007. More then 10 times her annual income. Brother went guarantor in this case.

    Recently separated woman in mid 30s - salary of 50,000 p.a.: house originally bought for 170,000 - she wanted to buy ex partner out - house valued in 2005 at 350,000 thousand - she remortgaged for 350,000. 7 times her annual income.
    Gave 170,000 to ex (on a salary of 40,000) who bought a small house for 120,000 cash then took out a mortgage for 250,000 to pay for extensive remodelling. This increased valuation of house to 350,000 - so she remortgaged in 2007 to release some of the equity. Current mortgage 300,000 - salary has been reduced by 10%.

    Ironically - the only one who is making their full mortgage payments is the (no longer) post-grad student... rest are in arrears.

    Should these women have been given such large mortgages based on their declared income?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    ntlbell
    Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    amen wrote: »
    A bit off topic but I couldn't let this go.

    Can you provide data to support this statement ?

    you want data to suggest weather forcasters get it wrong?

    are you ****ting me?


  • Options
    #83
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Should these women have been given such large mortgages based on their declared income?
    Should those women have applied for such large mortgages at all?


  • Options
    #84
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Woman I worked with - she was a mature student in her late 40s who worked 19 hours a week for 25,000 P.A. She was given a mortgage for 250,000 in 2006. Ten times her income.

    Post-grad mature student in early 40s - income of 22,000 a year - given 100% mortgage for 225,000 in 2007. More then 10 times her annual income. Brother went guarantor in this case.

    Recently separated woman in mid 30s - salary of 50,000 p.a.: house originally bought for 170,000 - she wanted to buy ex partner out - house valued in 2005 at 350,000 thousand - she remortgaged for 350,000. 7 times her annual income.
    Gave 170,000 to ex (on a salary of 40,000) who bought a small house for 120,000 cash then took out a mortgage for 250,000 to pay for extensive remodelling. This increased valuation of house to 350,000 - so she remortgaged in 2007 to release some of the equity. Current mortgage 300,000 - salary has been reduced by 10%.

    Ironically - the only one who is making their full mortgage payments is the (no longer) post-grad student... rest are in arrears.

    Should these women have been given such large mortgages based on their declared income?
    Lots of examples, but we don't know what they (or their mortgage brokers) told the banks, do we? This is my point.


  • Options
    #85
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Lots of examples, but we don't know what they (or their mortgage brokers) told the banks, do we? This is my point.

    I do. I know exactly because one of them - the one with no arrears - was me. I was completely upfront about my income and I took out a tracker and the bank was AIB :p

    One of them was my partner at the time so I was around for the whole re-mortgage thing- one was her ex she was buying out and the other one enlisted my help to compile her financial statement :D.

    I was also present in a meeting when the bank manager was urging my partner to remortgage for 500,000 as a neighbour had just sold a similar house (des-res award winning estate in a 'posh' area of Cork) to hers for 750,000. He was giving it the hard sell - only my swift kick to the shins stopped her. The bank was First Active.

    3 of the houses on the estate my partner lives in are on sale for 250,000 - another one has just dropped their price to 175,000 - and they ain't selling.

    TSB allowed my sister to release equity on her house in 2008- making her mortgage 10 times her salary.

    The simple fact is Banks lent to people based on 10 times their annual salary and encouraged people to release the equity locked in their property by remortgaging.


  • Options
    #86
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Gurgle wrote: »
    Should those women have applied for such large mortgages at all?

    In the case of someone buying out their partner - what option did they have? They had to buy them out for 50% of the market valuation so had no choice but to remortgage.


  • Options
    #87
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    In the case of someone buying out their partner - what option did they have? They had to buy them out for 50% of the market valuation so had no choice but to remortgage.
    house originally bought for 170,000 - she wanted to buy ex partner out - house valued in 2005 at 350,000 thousand - she remortgaged for 350,000. 7 times her annual income.
    Gave 170,000 to ex (on a salary of 40,000) who bought a small house for 120,000 cash then took out a mortgage for 250,000 to pay for extensive remodelling. This increased valuation of house to 350,000 - so she remortgaged in 2007 to release some of the equity. Current mortgage 300,000 - salary has been reduced by 10%.
    I don't follow the maths here.
    Presumably she had to buy her partner out of 50% of the equity, did they own it free and clear at the time of the break-up?
    Why did she borrow the full value to pay him half the equity?


  • Options
    #88
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Gurgle wrote: »
    Yep. And that's completely unfair.

    But 95% of people put their winter clothes and wet weather gear in the attic, while the other 5% (including this guy) got rid of theirs.

    Why should the 95%, who are already paying for the Met Office losses, also take on the losses of the naive fools who took Met Office predictions as a pre-ordained future?

    The problem is - it's not 5% and the growing problem is seriously damaging hopes of our banking system recovering.
    We are ploughing billions into recapitalising the banks while not dealing with the ever expanding mortgage arrears elephant in the room which continues to drag the bank's balance sheets into the red.

    Now, I have no sympathy for those who BTL - as I think they played a large role in pushing the price of starter home up to insane levels but I think FTB's should be cut some slack - and no I am not a FTB so I would not benefit, nor do I have mortgage arrears. I am paying my debts as I took them on and so will pay - they ain't getting my tracker though. ;)


  • Options
    #89
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    seamus wrote: »
    To be fair, you have no idea what her income is :)

    She might not be full-time, she might not have a permanent position, and so forth.

    The Irish Times has more relevant information on this:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0427/breaking16.html

    Basic situation:
    She couldn't make her mortgage repayments. Bank chased her in 2010, so she handed the house back to them voluntarily and they sold it.
    Now they sought to get the balance from her, but she still couldn't afford to make the repayments..........................

    To be fair if you're on €70k/annum and get a mortgage based on that, when you leave that job and take another for €50k/annum is it fair to then claim you are having difficulties with your mortgage?


    Zamboni wrote: »
    This nurse is on Newstalk 106 right now with Eddie Hobbs and Jonathon Healy.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    She was earning 70k at the time - 3.5 times earnings. Then she quit to go to a job she preferred paying 50k.

    I don't know where the €250 per month figure comes from. Probably a comfy figure for her to pay after her rent, and living expenses.

    Sounds to me like the bank did nothing wrong at all in this case.


  • Options
    #90
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The simple fact is Banks lent to people based on 10 times their annual salary and encouraged people to release the equity locked in their property by remortgaging.
    Encouraged? As opposed to 'forced'?

    Maybe it's just me, but salespeople routinely encourage me to buy stuff I know I don't need and possibly can't afford. So I don't buy it.

    A salesman will always sell you as much of their product as you let them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    RoverZT
    Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭RoverZT


    Doesn't seem fair to me at all.

    Going rate for a nurse in the big cities is 20 euro+ an hour.

    Friend of my sister is getting 22 euro a hour in nursing home in co.limerick.

    She says they are always short staffed and she often does 50 hour week.She gets a shift allowance as well of 150 euro a week.

    Her basic salary is 22 x 39 hours + 150 shift = 1008 euro a week

    Plus overtime say 5 hours a week, 5 x 33 euro = 165 euro a week

    60k a year.

    Poor nurses :rolleyes:


Advertisement