Does personal responsibility for one's situation exist in Ireland?

Tiger Mcilroy · 13-11-2014 12:59pm

Grayson wrote: »

First of all, lets exclude people who couldn't pay the mortgage because they got sick or lost a job or something like that. That could happen when the economy is in full boom and they'd still be screwed.

A lot of people though are over extended. They were over extended in the boom and just didn't realise it. They went for a mortgage and asked what the max they could get was. Some topped it up with over drafts and loans. They could just afford it during the boom and assumed that wages etc would rise. When they ended up with less cash due to taxation increases it brought them below the line they needed to live on. Plus the negative equity means they can't offload the property.

However I think that most people in this situation have taken responsibility. they made cutbacks in their expenses and are adjusting. they realise that although the bank let them get those loans/mortgages and although the government allowed the banks to do it, it was their own choice.

the thing is that these people aren't whingers. It's only the whingers we hear.

This is the point a large percentage of the people accept that they borrowed the money and are paying their way.

EoinHef · 13-11-2014 1:02pm

homerjay2005 wrote: »

the vast majority if people COULD NOT afford the mortgages they got. you had people getting 400k mortgages and net income of no more than 60k a year.

When i was looking into a house 60k would have gotten about 300K from the major lenders. Is there figures you can quote me or is it just personal experience,that was in 2007.

If i was still on the salary i was on then i would be very comfortable now,alas it was unsustainable and i understand that but at the time nobody knew things were about to change so dramatically. Hindsight is a great thing. People were getting mortgages based on their salary + the value of the asset they were buying. That was a mistake by the banks imo,they thought they could have access to an asset that would only go up in value while us scmuks were paying to live in it. They thought it was win win for them and just kept throwing money around. People just did what they had to do to get a house to start families etc,and im not talking about the type who bought 3 houses and a holiday home. Just a primary residense

I dont think debt forgiveness will ever happen,but a guy who was earning that 60k back in 2007 could be earning half that now,with some of the penal interest rates are friends the banks are charging us that would mean after tax there would be near zero left to live on if he had a sizeable mortgage based on a 60k salary. Now while he would like to take responsibility for it,in reality he cant pay back the loan,whats that person to do?

Jawgap · 13-11-2014 1:04pm

the evasion_kid wrote: »

People got too caught up in the property market it was all buy,buy,buy and get your foot on the property ladder,with a mortage that would probably see you into the grave first.I remember couples i used to drink with nearly bragging about their 400,000 euro mortgages and thinking to myself how insane it all was,some lost their jobs ended up arguing,splitting up and moving back in with their parents.

Likewise.......I've a decent salary and I used to wonder how friends and colleagues earning about the same as I did were able to afford the house inside the M50, the couple of holidays a year, the new car every few years.......at the time I just couldn't figure out how they were making the sums add up and I assumed a lot were doing 'nixers' (maybe they were?) to earn extra cash.

Tiger Mcilroy · 13-11-2014 1:04pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Not what I said at all....

As other posters have said , it's got nothing to do with anyone claiming prescience in foreseeing the current economic situation but it's about looking at the future and "Stress testing" the cost of the mortgage to see if it is manageable under a number of reasonable scenarios.
Loss of Job

Interest Rate change

Personal circumstances change like having kids , getting married etc.

All of these are reasonable things to consider when taking on a 20 yr+ financial responsibility.

You need to review them and either accept the risk or mitigate against it by reducing the size of your mortgage or if possible taking out other protections (income protection policies etc).

My point around people who lost their job was simply that that one is probably the hardest to mitigate against outside of insurance policies , which can be expensive..

I have sympathy for people in that situation , but I have significantly less for people who didn't plan for the fact that they might have kids or that they might not be made managing director of their company in 5 years etc...

Thats exactly what you said or do you mean another group that you didnt refrerence in the below post?

People were stupid and gullible (not everyone , but enough of them)

I'm not talking about people who lost their jobs - No amount of fiscal prudence fully protects from that... I'm talking about the multitude of people who are still employed , but who can't afford their mortgage due to increased interest rates or due to a change in circumstances (having kids mainly).. That's a lack of planning , plain and simple.

Grayson · 13-11-2014 1:05pm

The Strawman Argument wrote: »

A lot of the stuff people are saying here applies to Irish people are really things that just apply to humans in general...

Pretty much every study has shown that humans are really, really bad at quantifying risk. The average person, who has no mathematical, statistical or economic background will find it next to impossible to quantify risks associated with mortgages.
(Note: I'm not saying everyone is dumb, just that they won't be able to identify risks. A good mortgage advisor should do this for them and educate the customer so they can make an informed decision)

Quin_Dub · 13-11-2014 1:10pm

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

Thats exactly what you said or do you mean another group that you didnt refrerence in the below post?

People were stupid and gullible (not everyone , but enough of them)

I'm not talking about people who lost their jobs - No amount of fiscal prudence fully protects from that... I'm talking about the multitude of people who are still employed , but who can't afford their mortgage due to increased interest rates or due to a change in circumstances (having kids mainly).. That's a lack of planning , plain and simple.

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

So if somebody lost their job its ok but if somebodys circumstances change for whatever reason were stupid?..im not defending anybody and we all should pay our bills but posters claiming they had the first clue at the time and were one of the minority that saw it all coming is pure waffle.

Yes , I said people had been stupid and yes I said that my point was less focused on those that had lost their jobs and more on those who hadn't planned for fairly reasonable potential changes in their circumstance..

But , I have never said that anybody somehow fully foresaw the Global economic issues since 2008.

My earlier post perhaps didn't clarify the point I was making enough , but I think the more recent one does..

Jawgap · 13-11-2014 1:16pm

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

Thats exactly what you said or do you mean another group that you didnt refrerence in the below post?

People were stupid and gullible (not everyone , but enough of them)

I'm not talking about people who lost their jobs - No amount of fiscal prudence fully protects from that... I'm talking about the multitude of people who are still employed , but who can't afford their mortgage due to increased interest rates or due to a change in circumstances (having kids mainly).. That's a lack of planning , plain and simple.

You can post in bold all you want.....but the data is against you.

Data from the Central Bank (2011) showed there were almost as many equity release mortgages in trouble as there were first time buyers - so people were borrowing to buy a property then borrowing against the 'equity' a few years later!!! And that's before you get to consider the muppets who borrowed at LTVs over 90% and even over 100%!

Most of these equity releases and purchases took place in 2004 to 2006 and guess what? Mortgages issued in the period 2004 to 2007 make up the majority of mortgages in arrears.

Finally, most of the time kids aren't an unplanned event

Tiger Mcilroy · 13-11-2014 1:18pm

Jawgap wrote: »

You can post in bold all you want.....but the data is against you.

Data from the Central Bank (2011) showed there were almost as many equity release mortgages in trouble as there were first time buyers - so people were borrowing to buy a property then borrowing against the 'equity' a few years later!!! And that's before you get to consider the muppets who borrowed at LTVs over 90% and even over 100%!

Most of these equity releases and purchases took place in 2004 to 2006 and guess what? Mortgages issued in the period 2004 to 2007 make up the majority of mortgages in arrears.

Finally, most of the time kids aren't an unplanned event

The bold part isnt my post.

the evasion_kid · 13-11-2014 1:19pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Likewise.......I've a decent salary and I used to wonder how friends and colleagues earning about the same as I did were able to afford the house inside the M50, the couple of holidays a year, the new car every few years.......at the time I just couldn't figure out how they were making the sums add up and I assumed a lot were doing 'nixers' (maybe they were?) to earn extra cash.

I know one thing for certain,I was working a 40-45 hour week and remember hearing about this mystical Celtic tiger on the radio and newspapers.....I never seen it

brooke 2 · 13-11-2014 1:20pm

timetogo wrote: »

Personal responsibility does exist in Ireland. Not everybody blames the government for everything.

Blaming somebody else is an easy choice. If you do that there's nothing you can do to make you lot in life better. If you don't you've got some work to do. The first option is the one a lot of people go for.

Like other posters here I know some people who rant and rave about the government for everything. Generally the people not ranting and raving are those that are too busy trying to get ahead.

Admittedly the government do seem to cock up a hell of a lot.

It's kind of depressing though. The same people who gave out about Fianna Fail are now giving out about FG and I guarantee they'll be ranting about the next one.

Have you ever travelled? You won't hear anything about Ireland once you depart
these shores! But, you will hear the citizens of ANY country you visit complaining
about their respective governments. Am always amused by this! Heck, just turn on
Sky and they are complaining about Cameron et al. Turn on Fox News - not a word
about Ireland, but plenty about the 'dreadful' Obama and co. It is the lot of the
government of any country to have people 'ranting' about it!! I remember in the
heady days of Enda's election with the 'largest majority ever', a cousin of mine
saying 'this time next year, Enda will be the most hated man in Ireland'. Prophetic
or acknowledging the realities of being in government??

geeksauce · 13-11-2014 1:29pm

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

In fairness your making up scenarios that didnt happen and are using them to argue with.

Not really though, I mean you are the one saying people took out mortgages based on what the banks told them they could afford. I said this was pure nonsense and completely stupid of anyone that borrowed an amount the banks said they could afford, rather than borrowing an amount they knew themselves they could afford.

It is far easier for these people to blame the banks I suppose rather than to take responsibility for the fact they borrowed too much, just because the bank said they could afford it.

If you applied for a loan of €10,000 tomorrow and the bank turned around and offered you €100,000 would you borrow the €100,000 just because the bank said you could?

topper75 · 13-11-2014 1:30pm

Idraulici wrote: »

It's the fault of our government's socialist tendencies.

What if I said voters voted them in?

Not German voters either.

Irish voters.

Irish who weighed up a party on how much they would spend and how much they would slash taxes, like children evaluating the parents on the basis of how much of the weekly grocery shop goes on sweets.

Mad for the socialism. And nothing gets fixed until that tendency changes.

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 2:10pm

You know I'm fairly optimistic about the future after this last crash. Looking around the world during the boom, not many countries changed leadership thinking their current leader was causing the good times. then the crash and lots of leaders were changed. Ireland, UK, US, Australia, France, and lots by a huge margin. As Brook 2 points out,Enda won by a huge margin as did Obama. They each blamed their own government as if they were solely responsible for the crash. When you look around and see all the others like the UK and US blame their leader it makes you wonder how much influence could Bertie or Enda possibly have?

In fairness this was a global economic crash and it is probably due to unprecedented ability to transport goods, people and information quickly. I certainly hope that the policy makers account for this in the future and we are unlikely to see such big boom bust in the near future. slow steady growth.... until the next big thing arrives and we all go a bit mad again. We're just shaved apes and were doing our best.

EoinHef · 13-11-2014 2:21pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Our economic system is all about confidence resulting in boom-bust cycles. the bigger the boom the bigger the bust. It was ever thus so imagining that everyone would remain on ever-increasing wages is ridiculous.

I don't think you could teach that level of responsibility to the irish. The Germans have rent control which avoids the inflated prices and keeps cost of living down. Never in a million years could you get the irish to agree to that kind of policy.

Sounds like hindsight to me,all well and good saying it goes in cycles but you cant predict when the bust is coming,if it could be predicted precisely it wouldnt happen because preventative measures could be taken. I dont think anybody thought wages were going to go up forever,there was good growth in the economy and things looked good so there was no reason to think things were going to change so dramatically. You seem to remember this time differently to me. Lets not forget the scale of what was/is a global financial crisis,most of the western world was in on the party.

Germans and responsibility,i wonder how much of this loose credit in ireland was from german institutions?
But sure we took responsibility and pay/will pay them it all back.....with interest:pac:

Peist2007 · 13-11-2014 2:24pm

jank wrote: »

I have said it before and I'll say it again. We are not a serious people. Everything is a crisis and everything is someone else's fault. Like children in a playground. I thought the last crash would be the time to grow up but it seems not. Populism rules. Tbh most people have no idea how the world works.

Nail on head. People complaining about mortgages and the government and wouldnt be able to tell you what the terms of their own mortgage is nor have any clue about government policies etc. Sad but true

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 2:37pm

EoinHef wrote: »

Sounds like hindsight to me,all well and good saying it goes in cycles but you cant predict when the bust is coming,if it could be predicted precisely it wouldnt happen because preventative measures could be taken. I dont think anybody thought wages were going to go up forever,there was good growth in the economy and things looked good so there was no reason to think things were going to change so dramatically. You seem to remember this time differently to me. Lets not forget the scale of what was/is a global financial crisis,most of the western world was in on the party.

Germans and responsibility,i wonder how much of this loose credit in ireland was from german institutions?
But sure we took responsibility and pay/will pay them it all back.....with interest:pac:

It is hindsight. Hindsight of looking back through history and seeing that a bust follows a boom. If you find yourself in a boom, you know you are heading for a bust. It is impossible to predict precisely when but you know it will happen.

If you find yourself in a boom, that is the time to prepare for the bust as well as capitalising on the boom.

Yeah the Germans invested and speculated like most people but they also made a effort to stop the thing going mad. They made plans for the future. We all knew a bust was coming. The Germans used rent control to prevent the type of crazy bidding wars and borrowing which happened here so when the bust did arrive we were left with enormous mortgages and they were not.

The concept of saving during the boom went out the window in Ireland. That is as a result of pretending the good times would continue...

Son Of A Vidic · 13-11-2014 2:46pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I do wonder who frog marched the mortgage holders in to a bank to take out a loan they could not afford

Oh wait, so the people bullied the poor, harmless bankers into giving them loans? Cop on. Now let's get back to reality. Who assessed loan applicants means? Who assessed their suitability for said mortgages? And who granted final loan approval? If some people borrowed beyond their means, then who enabled them? Who could have prevented people from putting a financial noose around their necks in the first place? Yes you know the answer, it was the irresponsible, incompetent gobshytes in the banks. They could have easily rejected any unsuitable loan applications. But they were more interested in reaching their targets & bonuses and acting as facilitators. They had absolutely no interest in implementing any semblance of ethical & responsible bank lending.

Magico Gonzalez · 13-11-2014 2:52pm

Shared blame really, in terms of the housing and credit boom and subsequent crash we were victims of personal greed, inept local legislation, inept european legislation, and populism in the form of a govt who handed out tax breaks and turned a blind eye to ensure they would stay in power. We lacked an effective opposition to point it out.

Legislators, CEOs and individuals buying apartments in Bulgaria are all individuals. Unfortunately our under developed legal system prohibits us from jailing some of the culpable and forces us to target those with small personal debts.

Tommyrifle · 13-11-2014 3:00pm

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Oh wait, so the people bullied the poor, harmless bankers into giving them loans? Cop on. Now let's get back to reality. Who assessed loan applicants means? Who assessed their suitability for said mortgages? And who granted final loan approval? If some people borrowed beyond their means, then who enabled them? Who could have prevented people from putting a financial noose around their necks in the first place? Yes you know the answer, it was the irresponsible, incompetent gobshytes in the banks. They could have easily rejected any unsuitable loan applications. But they were more interested in reaching their targets & bonuses and acting as facilitators. They had absolutely no interest in implementing any semblance of ethical bank lending.

People are selfish, of course people will try to get their bonuses. If a bank over lends then it will suffer the consequences or at least should suffer the consequences if not for socialist government policies. It is your own responsibility to pay back a loan that you take out. If your lent money to a friend and they couldn't pay you back would you accept the excuse that it was your fault for lending them the money?

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 3:12pm

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Oh wait, so the people bullied the poor, harmless bankers into giving them loans? Cop on. Now let's get back to reality. Who assessed loan applicants means? Who assessed their suitability for said mortgages? And who granted final loan approval? If some people borrowed beyond their means, then who enabled them? Who could have prevented people from putting a financial noose around their necks in the first place? Yes you know the answer, it was the irresponsible, incompetent gobshytes in the banks. They could have easily rejected any unsuitable loan applications. But they were more interested in reaching their targets & bonuses and acting as facilitators. They had absolutely no interest in implementing any semblance of ethical & responsible bank lending.

Its like saying that a child can ask for sweets and it's up to the parent to say yes or no. It's pretending the people have absolutely no responsibility it is the opposite to taking responsibility.

Something like rent control would have made a big impact. Less people would have gotten massively wealthy in the good times and less people would have lost their homes more recently BUT the people of Ireland would never have voted for a party who would introduce rent control.

Your argument is that it was the banker's responsibility to say NO. Bu tit is our responsibility say no to bad policy and to vote for good policy. In the boom we voted for whoever promised the most without regards for the future. Your argument goes further than you stated. We the electorate got the government we wanted.

Quin_Dub · 13-11-2014 3:16pm

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Oh wait, so the people bullied the poor, harmless bankers into giving them loans? Cop on. Now let's get back to reality. Who assessed loan applicants means? Who assessed their suitability for said mortgages? And who granted final loan approval? If some people borrowed beyond their means, then who enabled them? Who could have prevented people from putting a financial noose around their necks in the first place? Yes you know the answer, it was the irresponsible, incompetent gobshytes in the banks. They could have easily rejected any unsuitable loan applications. But they were more interested in reaching their targets & bonuses and acting as facilitators. They had absolutely no interest in implementing any semblance of ethical & responsible bank lending.

Of course the banks were at fault - Like you say , focused on their bonus etc..

BUT - So are the people that accepted their bull**** at face value and took on massive mortgages with repayments @ 50%+ of take home pay...

Bottom line , lots of blame on both sides.

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 3:20pm

Tommyrifle wrote: »

People are selfish, of course people will try to get their bonuses. If a bank over lends then it will suffer the consequences or at least should suffer the consequences if not for socialist government policies. It is your own responsibility to pay back a loan that you take out. If your lent money to a friend and they couldn't pay you back would you accept the excuse that it was your fault for lending them the money?

First post and that's you off to an embarrassing start with that reply. Comparing mates lending money, to that an irresponsible financial institution is completely ridiculous.

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 3:24pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

BUT - So are the people that accepted their bull**** at face value and took on massive mortgages with repayments @ 50%+ of take home pay...

Bottom line , lots of blame on both sides.

Sorry the Bottom line is the banks signed off on it. Most people bought one home, it's also the most stressful time of their lives. A lot of people put their faith & trust in the banks hands to guide them through it all. The banks clearly failed in their duty of care to their customers.

Pinch Flat · 13-11-2014 3:25pm

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Oh wait, so the people bullied the poor, harmless bankers into giving them loans? Cop on. Now let's get back to reality. Who assessed loan applicants means? Who assessed their suitability for said mortgages? And who granted final loan approval? If some people borrowed beyond their means, then who enabled them? Who could have prevented people from putting a financial noose around their necks in the first place? Yes you know the answer, it was the irresponsible, incompetent gobshytes in the banks. They could have easily rejected any unsuitable loan applications. But they were more interested in reaching their targets & bonuses and acting as facilitators. They had absolutely no interest in implementing any semblance of ethical & responsible bank lending.

Do you walk into a car dealer with say €10k to buy a Ford Focus and the dealer convinces you to spend €40k on a Beamer? Makes about much sense to me.

People here do have a serious issues with personal responsibility - it goes though personal and working life as well. 'Not my responsibility' I've heard that so many times. Everything here is everyone else's problem and a lot of people walk around in a self centered myopic bubble.

I was chatting around a coffee table with a few work colleagues about mortgage default a while back - out of a half dozen or so of us, the general consensus was that it was someone else's peoblem if they lost their Job and couldn't pay. I recounted a story where I was on the dole, which I saw coming miles away, and curtailed our life style based on one salary - negotiated with the bank on our mortgage (which I paid while out of work). Was met with incredulity - banks problem, The general feeling was that if it comes to it 'post the keys in the letter box and emmigrate', an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Jawgap · 13-11-2014 3:27pm

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Oh wait, so the people bullied the poor, harmless bankers into giving them loans? Cop on. Now let's get back to reality. Who assessed loan applicants means? Who assessed their suitability for said mortgages? And who granted final loan approval? If some people borrowed beyond their means, then who enabled them? Who could have prevented people from putting a financial noose around their necks in the first place? Yes you know the answer, it was the irresponsible, incompetent gobshytes in the banks. They could have easily rejected any unsuitable loan applications. But they were more interested in reaching their targets & bonuses and acting as facilitators. They had absolutely no interest in implementing any semblance of ethical & responsible bank lending.

I think the point is neither the borrowers or lenders are wholly to blame or wholly innocent.

There was a failure of regulation (but let's face it, we voted in the politicos who appointed these regulators) - and that enabled greed to run riot. Yes, the banks enabled people to borrow beyond their means - but only those people who allowed themselves to be seduced........who left rational thought at the door, and did things like borrowing from the credit union to generate a deposit, or selectively presenting salary information from good months.

On the flip side the desire for bonuses and to meet sales targets hardly incentivised bank staff to probe applications in any kind of meaningful way.

Seriously, if you are borrowing at an LTV of more than 90% or an amount that exceeds 3.5 times the primary salary and 1.5 times the secondary salary.......or engaging in 'equity release'.......or borrowing to finance a BTL (especially a BTL on the other side of the continent!!!).......then you've no complaint - you gambled, you lost - hard luck and pay up.

If you, saved, borrowed sensibly and were just blindsided by a depression caused by other people's greed - fair enough. If people can prove that (it shouldn't be assumed) - there should be huge help for them. At the very least they should be able to hand the keys back and just walk away unencumbered by any debt or mortgage, or, preferably, negotiate the debt down to a manageable amount.

As for foresight - first year economics students can tell you about cycles (and unsustainable market expansion) - it was inevitable the boom would end, even if the manner and severity of the ending was completely unforeseeable. The problem is that everyone knows you should run counter-cyclical policies - but try get elected in this or any other country by having a manifesto based on that principle........especially in the middle of a boom.

Quin_Dub · 13-11-2014 3:32pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Sorry the Bottom line is the banks signed off on it. Most people bought one home, it's also the most stressful time of their lives. A lot of people put their faith & trust in the banks hands to guide them through it all. The banks clearly failed in their duty of care to their customers.

I don't accept that - Anybody that totally abrogates the responsibility around due diligence for the largest financial transaction of their lives to the Sales rep (that's what the broker/banker is after all) gets what they deserve..

If you are signing up for 20-30 years of repayments , you'd better be damn sure you've thought long and hard about it and have not just accepted whatever happy-clappy spiel the Sales guy has pimped..

Bottom line...Caveat Emptor.

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 3:36pm

Jawgap wrote: »

I think the point is neither the borrowers or lenders are wholly to blame or wholly innocent.

There was a failure of regulation (but let's face it, we voted in the politicos who appointed these regulators) - and that enabled greed to run riot. Yes, the banks enabled people to borrow beyond their means - but only those people who allowed themselves to be seduced........who left rational thought at the door, and did things like borrowing from the credit union to generate a deposit, or selectively presenting salary information from good months.

On the flip side the desire for bonuses and to meet sales targets hardly incentivised bank staff to probe applications in any kind of meaningful way.

Seriously, if you are borrowing at an LTV of more than 90% or an amount that exceeds 3.5 times the primary salary and 1.5 times the secondary salary.......or engaging in 'equity release'.......or borrowing to finance a BTL (especially a BTL on the other side of the continent!!!).......then you've no complaint - you gambled, you lost - hard luck and pay up.

If you, saved, borrowed sensibly and were just blindsided by a depression caused by other people's greed - fair enough. If people can prove that (it shouldn't be assumed) - there should be huge help for them. At the very least they should be able to hand the keys back and just walk away unencumbered by any debt or mortgage, or, preferably, negotiate the debt down to a manageable amount.

As for foresight - first year economics students can tell you about cycles (and unsustainable market expansion) - it was inevitable the boom would end, even if the manner and severity of the ending was completely unforeseeable. The problem is that everyone knows you should run counter-cyclical policies - but try get elected in this or any other country by having a manifesto based on that principle........especially in the middle of a boom.

But the point remains the banks signed off on it and allowed it. Buying a home is the most stressful time in most people lives. Many people are bamboozled by the financial mumbo jumbo and many were lured into a false sense of security by the banks.

Pinch Flat · 13-11-2014 3:37pm

In fairness a lot of it was plain stupidity / naevity on a mass scale. When we got out mortgage approval in 2003 on our second house, we had a few frank words with the bank

1. Thanks for your approval, but we're only looking for about 50% of that
2. We don't want to put a modest car loan over the term of the mortgage - we will have it paid back in a few years. Not do we want money for a new car, or even a second one.
3. We don't want to keep the house we're selling as an 'investment'
4. About the term - can we knock it back from 30 years to 20? I don't want to be paying a mortgage off in my late 50s
5. I work in construction - things are great at the moment but when this phase comes to and end and I'm out of work, we want to be able to pay our way based on my wife's nursing salary.
6. No need for pre-approved loans for those plasma TVs, patio heaters, jacuzzis or the nice holiday you think we should have
7. We're happy with the house we are buying - yes it's modest and we'd like the one with the extra bedroom and reception rooms, but it'll stretch Us too much

People need to go into these things like growns ups - if you got sucked in, it's a case of tough luck

Magico Gonzalez · 13-11-2014 3:38pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Sorry the Bottom line is the banks signed off on it. Most people bought one home, it's also the most stressful time of their lives. A lot of people put their faith & trust in the banks hands to guide them through it all. The banks clearly failed in their duty of care to their customers.

Using capital letters doesn't change the fact that there is a shared responsibility and burden.

Cool Mo D · 13-11-2014 3:42pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

But the point remains the banks signed off on it and allowed it. Buying a home is the most stressful time in most people lives. Many people are bamboozled by the financial mumbo jumbo and many were lured into a false sense of security by the banks.

That's a load of condescending rubbish. A mortgage is a big commitment, not a complicated concept - you are borrowing a lot of money to buy a house.

Every single mortgage transaction in this country is started by the borrower walking into a bank branch - no bank has ever forced anyone to take one out. Borrowers failing to exercise the slightest bit of cop-on is not the fault of the bank.

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 3:44pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

In fairness a lot of it was plain stupidity / naevity on a mass scale. When we got out mortgage approval in 2003 on our second house, we had a few frank words with the bank

1. Thanks for your approval, but we're only looking for about 50% of that
2. We don't want to put a modest car loan over the term of the mortgage - we will have it paid back in a few years. Not do we want money for a new car, or even a second one.
3. We don't want to keep the house we're selling as an 'investment'
4. About the term - can we knock it back from 30 years to 20? I don't want to be paying a mortgage off in my late 50s
5. I work in construction - things are great at the moment but when this phase comes to and end and I'm out of work, we want to be able to pay our way based on my wife's nursing salary.
6. No need for pre-approved loans for those plasma TVs, patio heaters, jacuzzis or the nice holiday you think we should have
7. We're happy with the house we are buying - yes it's modest and we'd like the one with the extra bedroom and reception rooms, but it'll stretch Us too much

People need to go into these things like growns ups - if you got sucked in, it's a case of tough luck

But I think you're missing the point that NotASheeple is making. Once the bank said you could have it, you were no longer responsible as they took responsibility. Right NotASheeple?

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 3:44pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't accept that - Anybody that totally abrogates the responsibility around due diligence for the largest financial transaction of their lives to the Sales rep (that's what the broker/banker is after all) gets what they deserve..

If you are signing up for 20-30 years of repayments , you'd better be damn sure you've thought long and hard about it and have not just accepted whatever happy-clappy spiel the Sales guy has pimped..

Bottom line...Caveat Emptor.

Bottom line, if the Banks had of conducted proper and responsible financial assessments. They wouldn't have signed off on these loans. Too many people were giving a false sense of security by these banks. There are few times in ones life when you depend on those with greater knowledge/expertise. In hospital most people put their faith in the hands of nurses & doctors. Trusting their knowledge and expertise. Buying a home, can invoke similar vulnerability and many people were out of their depth. They put trust & faith in the judgement and guidance of banks. Banks who were negligent and criminal in their actions imo.

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 3:46pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Bottom line, if the Banks had of conducted proper and responsible financial assessments. They wouldn't have signed off on these loans. Too many people were giving a false sense of security by these banks. There are few times in ones life when you depend on those with greater knowledge/expertise. In hospital most people put their faith in the hands of nurses & doctors. Trusting their knowledge and expertise. Buying a home, can invoke similar vulnerability and many people were out of their depth. They put trust & faith in the judgement and guidance of banks. Banks who were negligent and criminal in their actions imo.

Doctors and nurses are not sales people

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 3:48pm

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Using capital letters doesn't change the fact that there is a shared responsibility and burden.

Do you understand what capital letters are? Because letters highlighted in bold aren't capital letters.

Jawgap · 13-11-2014 3:48pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

But the point remains the banks signed off on it and allowed it. Buying a home is the most stressful time in most people lives. Many people are bamboozled by the financial mumbo jumbo and many were lured into a false sense of security by the banks.

Mumbo jumbo???

(Primary salary x 3.5) + (Second salary x 1.5) = the max amount you can borrow

(Max amount you can borrow) < 90% of the value of the property

Monthly payment < 25% of combined take home pay

If that's mumbo jumbo then it must've been Bosco who was putting in the loan apps.

People were sold to and they allowed themselves to be oversold products and credit they could not afford.

I don't know about anyone else but I know when we bought our place there was much agonising over whether we could afford it - we knew the monthly payment and we knew how much our outgoings were - and we knew how much we were earning. If you can't figure out which should be lower than the other then, quiet frankly, you're retarded or reckless or a bit of both!

Tommyrifle · 13-11-2014 3:48pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

First post and that's you off to an embarrassing start with that reply. Comparing mates lending money, to that an irresponsible financial institution is completely ridiculous.

It's not really, it's your responsibility to pay back a loan.

denhaagenite · 13-11-2014 3:50pm

We looked into buying a house in and around Cork City in 2007. We were worried about the future "what ifs" so weren't really concerned with borrowing as much as we could which iirc was about €350,000. Cheapest we could find was a 2 bed kip for €200,000 so we said we'd work abroad for a year and re- evaluate the situation then. We really dodged a bullet but only because we saw what was on offer and decided it just wasn't worth it at all.

Now we've owned our house for 5 years, not concerned about negative equity because we live here and even though we could've got something cheaper or more expensive we had a choice about neighbourhood, amenities, location that we would definitely not have had in Ireland, at any point. Banks were very strict about how much we could borrow and investigated the stability of our employment. We based it solely on my husbands income as we knew mine would be tenuous, and we have insurance and adequate savings should the unexpected happen.

Friends we have in Ireland say we're lucky and we are in a lot of ways but when it comes to our money, luck has nothing to do with it. We work hard for what we have and don't have any personal debt besides our mortgage. If we can't afford something then we don't get it and that's the bottom line. They make me angry when they default on their mortgages but keep their Sky+ and then expect their parents to bail them out. 3 credit cards and a Credit Union loan were the norm back then, but not for us. We knew when we were looking at places in Cork that they just weren't good enough, we would struggle to make payments if our circumstances changed and we would end up being pretty unhappy with the area after the novelty of "being on the property ladder" wore off. We're not financial or economic experts either.

Cool Mo D · 13-11-2014 3:52pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Bottom line, if the Banks had of conducted proper and responsible financial assessments. They wouldn't have signed off on these loans. Too many people were giving a false sense of security by these banks. There are few times in ones life when you depend on those with greater knowledge/expertise. In hospital most people put their faith in the hands of nurses & doctors. Trusting their knowledge and expertise. Buying a home, can invoke similar vulnerability and many people were out of their depth. They put trust & faith in the judgement and guidance of banks. Banks who were negligent and criminal in their actions imo.

It's not the banks job to protect their customers. It's not negligent for a bank or any business to take a customer for all they can get. People borrowed the money to buy a house they expected to go up in value, and wanted the benefit of that.

Jawgap · 13-11-2014 3:54pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

....
6. No need for pre-approved loans for those plasma TVs, patio heaters, jacuzzis or the nice holiday you think we should have
.....

I seem to remember being pestered with loans and credit for stuff like this when I'd go into the bank.

One day I said to the young fellah who was trying to sell me a loan that if I wanted a new TV or new car, I'd save for it - the look of horror and bewilderment on his face haunts me to this day

Quin_Dub · 13-11-2014 3:55pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Bottom line, if the Banks had of conducted proper and responsible financial assessments. They wouldn't have signed off on these loans. Too many people were giving a false sense of security by these banks. There are few times in ones life when you depend on those with greater knowledge/expertise. In hospital most people put their faith in the hands of nurses & doctors. Trusting their knowledge and expertise. Buying a home, can invoke similar vulnerability and many people were out of their depth. They put trust & faith in the judgement and guidance of banks. Banks who were negligent and criminal in their actions imo.

And they were stupid to do so..

Do you feel sympathy for people that lose money to Nigerian Princes?

Probably not , you probably think they were more than a little silly to be taken in by such an obvious scam..

The fact that the Nigerian Prince is a scam artist and committing a crime doesn't make the person taken in by it any less of a twat.

Whether the banks were negligent or criminal or guilty of sharp practice or anything else , doesn't get us past the simple fact that people made stupid decisions and they need to live with the consequences of those decisions.

Pinch Flat · 13-11-2014 3:56pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Do you understand what capital letters are? Because letters highlighted in bold aren't capital letters.

Do you understand what a contract for sale is? Cos that's what you sign first before a bank countersigned it. You enter a contract eyes open and of your own free will.

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 3:56pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Doctors and nurses are not sales people

Looks like that point went way over your head. The point was putting trust & faith in those with superior knowledge within their chosen profession. You do it with a health problem, you do it when you've a problem with your car engine and you do it with financial matters. People tend to defer to those with greater knowledge and thus depend on guidance & advice from said experts. But when these experts lead someone astray, like a cowboy mechanic or banker has. Then no, I'm not going to blame the person who was misled.

Tommyrifle · 13-11-2014 3:57pm

Newsflash, companies try to make as much profit as they can. They will take all your money if you are willing to give it to them. Use a bit of cop on.

Tommyrifle · 13-11-2014 3:59pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Looks like that point went way over your head. The point was putting trust & faith in those with superior knowledge within their chosen profession. You do it with a health problem, you do it when you've a problem with your car engine and you do it with financial matters. People tend to defer to those with greater knowledge and thus depend on guidance & advice from said experts. But when these experts lead someone astray, like a cowboy mechanic or banker has. Then no, I'm not going to blame the person who was misled.

They are idiots for asking a salesman what they should do, anyone with a bit of sense looks for independent opinions.

NotASheeple · 13-11-2014 4:00pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Do you understand what a contract for sale is? Cos that's what you sign first before a bank countersigned it. You enter a contract eyes open and of your own free will.

Do you understand what a financial means assessment is? The only thing I would criticise people for, is for trusting the misguided advice they were given. Then again, the bank business was once a respectable business in this country so it's easy to see how people put trust in these institutions.

Pinch Flat · 13-11-2014 4:00pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Looks like that point went way over your head. The point was putting trust & faith in those with superior knowledge within their chosen profession. You do it with a health problem, you do it when you've a problem with your car engine and you do it with financial matters. People tend to defer to those with greater knowledge and thus depend on guidance & advice from said experts. But when these experts lead someone astray, like a cowboy mechanic or banker has. Then no, I'm not going to blame the person who was misled.

Wait hold on a second - I think I get it. You referring to the bank as the one with superior knowledge as you put it. Banks are institutions set up to make money from you and I. You're not taking a loan out from St Vincent de Paul.

Jesus no wonder this country is fcuked If this is the general "notasheeple" (sic) mentality

El_Duderino 09 · 13-11-2014 4:01pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Looks like that point went way over your head. The point was putting trust & faith in those with superior knowledge within their chosen profession. You do it with a health problem, you do it when you've a problem with your car engine and you do it with financial matters. People tend to defer to those with greater knowledge and thus depend on guidance & advice from said experts. But when these experts lead someone astray, like a cowboy mechanic or banker has. Then no, I'm not going to blame the person who was misled.

Yeah the point really didn't go over my head, you just used a poor analogy. The snake oil salesman is also an expert any you are free to take his advice, but if you don't see why ther buyer needs to take a look at the situation for himself, then I think this discussion is going over your head

Jawgap · 13-11-2014 4:02pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Looks like that point went way over your head. The point was putting trust & faith in those with superior knowledge within their chosen profession. You do it with a health problem, you do it when you've a problem with your car engine and you do it with financial matters. People tend to defer to those with greater knowledge and thus depend on guidance & advice from said experts. But when these experts lead someone astray, like a cowboy mechanic or banker has. Then no, I'm not going to blame the person who was misled.

You're talking about information asymmetry (the 'used car salesman' problem) and the principle doesn't apply here.

You apply to the bank - the bank lures you in and persuades you to borrow more. At some point the bank will give you a bit of paper that says that in return for the loan of their money you will make a monthly payment of €XXXX-XX.

At that point you have the information you need to decide the proposal is feasible or not. You sign or you don't. Unless you are saying people signed and left the bit with the re-payment amount blank?

There would only be information asymmetry if you applied and were persuaded to borrow more and agreed to take the loan before knowing the re-payment schedule.

EDIT - and I don't blame the doctor if I become ill, any more than I blame my mechanic if something goes ping in the car. I might blame them if they botch the cure or the repair.

Peist2007 · 13-11-2014 4:04pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

But the point remains the banks signed off on it and allowed it. Buying a home is the most stressful time in most people lives. Many people are bamboozled by the financial mumbo jumbo and many were lured into a false sense of security by the banks.

If you believe that then you're a child and shouldn't be let near a mortgage. We arent in primary school anymore. This is the real world. Banks aren't your mammy and daddy.

Ps a mortgage is a contract. 2 parties signed off on it. Really hope you dont have a mortgage because it would scare me if you do

Saipanne · 13-11-2014 4:04pm

What frustrates me is the fact that I didn't get carried away during the boom. I saw it for the scam that is was, and despite that, I'm paying for it through higher taxes/charges and reduced services.

Does personal responsibility for one's situation exist in Ireland?

Comments