Negative Equity & Trade Up Mortgage solutions & ideas.

Many young families in Ireland are now facing a situation, whereby they bought apartments at the top of the Celtic tiger, and are now in six figures plus of negative equity debt and unable to move to a larger home to start a family, despite having two incomes and being able to meet their current repayments without difficulty.

These young families are facing the ticking of a biological clock which means they risk losing the chance to start a family if they don't act now. Given that a blanket debt forgiveness scheme or 100%+ mortgages are not likely to happen in Ireland as things stand at present, could there be a more pragmatic scheme which would involve a compromise to satisfy all sides?

Perhaps a new type of equity sharing trade-up mortgage with the current lender, where instead of increasing the monthly repayment, or financing additional debt, some percentage of the equity in the new home is retained by the bank, and upon the death of the mortgagee, the house is sold and the market price (presumingly haven risen from the current historic lows) is divided accordingly between the deceased's estate and the bank?

It's a compromise for the homeowner for a better standard of living with the same outgoing expenditure, and a business risk for the bank, but a good one that's likely to pay off, given that there is probably only one way the housing market can go over the next 20 years or so.

I'm not an expert in property, but this would look like a compromise that would be at least amenable to all sides (if the banks were to give their blessing) and would realistically only be necessary to offer to a subset of the market for the next few years while this problem works it's way through the system.

Is there something I'm missing here?

Blowfish

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there something I'm missing here?

Yes. We are not at 'historic lows'.

There are also no guarantees that house prices will increase at anything greater than the rate of inflation. It is in essence, bundling extra risk onto the banks, which is the last thing they need right now.

If the family is comfortably meeting the current mortgage where is the benefit to the bank of taking on extra risk?

Can you provide some indicative numbers of the typical family you have in mind - outstanding existing mortgage, sale price of apartment, cost of new home and family savings to be contributed?

Between the negative equity being carried forward and the new loan to be extended I don't see how this would ever be a good investment for the bank.

Blowfish

Blowfish wrote: »

Yes. We are not at 'historic lows'.

There are also no guarantees that house prices will increase at anything greater than the rate of inflation. It is in essence, bundling extra risk onto the banks, which is the last thing they need right now.

I agree, it is subjecting banks to greater risk, but on the face of it, it would look like a solid risk, and also one which would force one of the key players in the whole debacle to bear some of the responsibility for their misdeeds in the past.

Also, the bank making it's money back just hinges on the market not dropping over a period of 20, 25 or even 30 years (the period most FTB mrtgages from the height of the boom have left to repay). Even in Ireland's property market, unless the country collapses completely and permanently, I'd say there's a good chance of not only that happening, but of them making a siginficant return on their cost of the share of the equity they would hold in the new property. They would look at it as a good long term speculation.

Prices may drop for another 5, even 10 years till we finally hit bottom, but they will rebound, and over 25-30 years they are bound to see some return on the refinanced NE debts.

Also there's the added benefit of improved security for them, as the asset the new loan would be secured against (a more desirable family residence) would be far more resaleable than the one the initial mortgage was secured against (a celtic tiger one bedroom apartment).

Sleepy

Would it, however, be improving the quality of the risk?

2 Bed Apartment bought with a Celtic Tiger 100% mortgage of 250k, Current value 100k (being generous for round figures), lets say 25k of principal has been paid down to date.

So, the collateral held against the mortgage only accounts for approx 45% of the outstanding mortgage balance.

Assuming they can afford the increased mortgage payments (subject to all reasonable forecasts) allowing the family to carry their negative equity onto a new house, say a 4 bed semi in Swords for 300k. Total value of mortgage would now be 425k (250k -25k - 100k + 300k) against assets with a colatteral value of 300k or 70.5% of the mortgage value.

So, sure, the figures become higher but the quality of the collateral increases greatly, especially when you look at the market: the collapse of the Euro notwithstanding, can anyone really see as much of a drop in property prices as we've already seen? I can see further drops but I can't see them being a further 60% in all honesty.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

If the family is comfortably meeting the current mortgage where is the benefit to the bank of taking on extra risk?

Can you provide some indicative numbers of the typical family you have in mind.......

OK, just some round figures for the sake of simplicity. Again, all of this is open to criticism, i'm more trying to tease out whether this is viable or not. It may very well not be, but input would be welcome.

Take a property such as a 2 bed apartment, bought in 2005 for 275k, 25k deposit, mortgage was 250k for argument's sake.

25k has been paid against the principal sum since then, so the bank is owed 225k currently.

The market value of the home has dropped (again for the sake of round figures and simplicity) by 50-60% since 2005, and is now worth perhaps 125k

The bank gives permission to sell for the 125k, which is paid against the outstanding 225k debt, which leaves the owner with no assets and an outstanding debt of 100k

The bank now furnishes a loan to purchase the second, more suitable property, at a value of let's say 250k at current market values. No deposit necessary, as the couple have proven their ability to keep up repayments over the last 6-7 years. (this is in essence a 100% mortgage, but one in which the bank will automatically assume a share of the house immediately as it's foreclosure security).

For their 100k debt against the cost of the 250k house the bank then takes a 2/5 share of the house as their long term equity and the owners take 3/5 of it, while continuing to repay the same level of mortgage payment they have always been able to make, based on the same initial sum advanced by the bank. They will continue paying the same mortgage, same conditions, same term, but instead of mortgaging to by 100% of an apartment, they are now mortgaging to buy 60% of a house which was bought for the same amount.

It may be necessary to readjust the equity balance (say to 50/50, again for simplicity's sake), to take account of a shorter time available to the borrowers to repay before their retirement, or other administration costs, etc. The key difference is that their house will be legally required to fall to be sold once they have repaid and died, but until then it is their house, and their repayments will remain the same.

Upon their repayment and subsequent death, their house has reached a market value of 400k in 25 years time, of which the bank takes it's 50% share =200k to cover it's initial 100k debt plus a profit for it's speculation.

Depending on bank and political sentiment for the deal, a provision could be made that the bank is allowed to make a reserve that 100% of it's it's 100k debt be recoverable regardless of the sale price of the house.

I may be wrong here, but what i think this is doing is deferring a debt which is having a material effect on the living standard of a celtic tiger FTB young family who bought in the height of the boom to a time in the future, after the parents have died, which allows them to live in a home which suits their means and their needs based on current(post tiger) market values. Their estate and surviving family will lose out financially in inheritance versus the estate of a family who did not buy at the height of the boom, but this is of minor consequence versus the alternative, and can be better prepared for over the 20-30 years to come.

pobber1

I agree that these people need some kind of a solution that will let them get on with their lives but this is a social problem. The banks couldn't give two hoots. If the mortgage holder is meeting their current repayments the bank see that as the end of the matter.

In many cases the negative equity is just to big. I know a young couple who bought 2 bed apartment in late 2006 who are sitting on €230,000 of negative equity. There are no schemes or products that can help with that. They will be in their early 50's by the time they clear the NE and have a deposit to buy a house (through a combination of saving and capital repayments). They are putting the ground work in to start the emigration process. People who are backed into a corner tend to react.

Why don't they rent the apartment out I hear you say? Because renting out the apartment means loosing their mortgage interest relief, paying tax, dealing with tenants, etc. What happens when the apartment has a void rental month or two? Then they will be paying rent and the full mortgage on the apartment, hardly a stable financial future for raising kids.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

Assuming they can afford the increased mortgage payments (subject to all reasonable forecasts) allowing the family to carry their negative equity onto a new house, say a 4 bed semi in Swords for 300k.

That's the key point, they don't carry the negative equity. They pay 100% of the mortgage for only 60% final ownership of the asset, the bank keeps the other 40% to cover the negative equity owed to them and recoups it when the house is sold after death. The NE isn't realised today and refinanced as part of the new mortgage, it's recouped after the house is paid off 100% and then sold.

The house has been repaid 100% in 25 years, but they (the bank) still get an additional 40% of it's sale value to cover the outstanding negative equity debt from the initial purchase during the tiger. They may have to wait 50 years for it, but the repayment of the toxic debt is effectively refinanced long term and is off the country's books.

pobber1

Thanks for the example MackDaddi.

When the new house is purchased the bank now has a 40% share in an asset that generates no income i.e. the banks share generates no income. The bank have to hope that when the property is sold they will make a profit. Am I missing something?

pobber1

pobber1 wrote: »

Thanks for the example MackDaddi.

When the new house is purchased the bank now has a 40% share in an asset that generates no income i.e. the banks share generates no income. The bank have to hope that when the property is sold they will make a profit. Am I missing something?

Correct. It's an asset for which they obtained a 40% stake at what is likely to be close to the bottom of the property market, and you're correct, it's a speculation on their part, but would it be one that they would be likely to take (?) given that:

A)there's a pretty good chance the asset will mostly only appreciate in value
B)there are only a limited number of potential applicants, and all would be applying ASAP. This scheme would not need to be available long term.

pobber1

Deleted User wrote: »

Correct. It's an asset for which they obtained a 40% stake at what is likely to be close to the bottom of the property market, and you're correct, it's a speculation on their part, but would it be one that they would be likely to take (?) given that:

A)there's a pretty good chance the asset will mostly only appreciate in value
B)there are only a limited number of potential applicants, and all would be applying ASAP. This scheme would not need to be available long term.

I just can't see the bank tying up capital in non performing assets no matter how limited the adoption of the scheme might be. I could be wrong of course.

Like I said, this is a social problem that requires government intervention. What form that intervention would take I'm not sure. People in this situation have been completely left out of the new insolvency legislation. The government seem to share the banks attitude of "you can afford your repayments so what's the problem?", completely ignoring the social consequences of thousands of young families stuck in apartments.

I actually don't think raising a child in an apartment is the end of the world but throwing money into a negative equity black hole for 20-30 years certainly is. The lack of action on this is financially sterilising people.

Sleepy

pobber1 wrote: »

The lack of action on this is financially sterilising people.

TBH, they did it to themselves when they took out the crazy loans.

I'm all in favour of accommodating people in negative equity to transfer that to another more suitable home where they have the financial ability to pay the new mortgage but I can't countenance any kind of debt forgiveness when it's to be borne by the tax payer.

pobber1

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, they did it to themselves when they took out the crazy loans.

I'm all in favour of accommodating people in negative equity to transfer that to another more suitable home where they have the financial ability to pay the new mortgage but I can't countenance any kind of debt forgiveness when it's to be borne by the tax payer.

I don't want to derail the thread (this argument has been done to death) but hindsight doesn't provide solutions for the future. Who do you think is going to pay when all the people who are in arrears on their mortgages file for bankruptcy? NE is a different side of the same coin.

pobber1

pobber1 wrote: »

I just can't see the bank tying up capital in non performing assets no matter how limited the adoption of the scheme might be. I could be wrong of course. Like I said, this is a social problem that requires government intervention.

Don't forget that much of that capital was given to them by us, at great cost.

What if government intervened, and it was treated as a political solution to a social problem?

The state, either through a special purpose vehicle, or through one of it's already nationalised banks, in order to assist people in the below example, buys the existing mortgage contract out, allows the sale, and assumes the 100k debt on behalf of the mortgagee. It then acts as the new lender and carries on as per the example.

With the exception of buying out loans from the non-nationalised banks, the losses and gains will all default to the exchequer one way or another anyway. We've bought the banks, it's just moving the same money around between departments, so why not give the people who are stuck in NE but have been making a genuine effort to pay their mortgage a bit of assistance?

pobber1 wrote: »

I actually don't think raising a child in an apartment is the end of the world but throwing money into a negative equity black hole for 20-30 years certainly is. The lack of action on this is financially sterilising people.

To this cohort of people though, the negative equity black hole doesn't make that much difference to their everyday living conditions. They can afford their repayments, it's the inability to trade up that's killing them.

They have made their bed in terms of buying at the wrong time in the market, and are OK with lying in it. Many of them accept that they will be paying over the odds for the roof over their head for life, that's not great, but it's not as big an issue as being denied a suitable place to live, and even in some cases denied the ability to have as many kids as you'd hoped. That's a fundamental human right that people have been and are being denied because of political and financial inaction.

What if you are a young married couple who live in a 2 bedroom apartment, you're aged let's say 30 or so, and want to have 3 kids? Your plan was to buy, get on the property ladder, and trade up to a house, as all the best advice told you to do a few years ago. Now you've got one child, space is tight, you're stuck in a place that has enough room for maybe one more at a squash, and you're facing issues with storage, noise levels, safety concerns, etc. Do you have more kids, how do you raise them with only one bedroom, no storage, no room for bikes, toys, kiddy walkers, etc, what happens when they are teenagers, and so on...?

This couple's possibility to have the family they've always wanted and have worked hard for will be around for another 10 years at most, regardless of the ecomomic circumstances, and then after that it doesn't matter a damn what the politicians come out with in terms of trade up mortgage solutions, it will be too late.

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, they did it to themselves when they took out the crazy loans...

Then why doesn't the same rationale apply to the greedy bankers who rubber stamped the same crazy loans? Billions of euros of taxpayers money goes to rescuing the banks who behaved worst out of all of this, yet the ordinary people who just wanted an ordinary life and to be able to pay for a roof over their family's head are left to the wolves?? These people who once represented the best, brightest hopes of our society, the upwardly mobile, career focused young people who were gazumped and pressurised by vested interests on all sides (most of whom came out of all this without a scratch), they just "did it to themselves"??

If Ireland ever reaches the point where that's representative of the prevailing thinking on this issue, i will be on the first 747 out of here.

Zulu

pobber1 wrote: »

I don't want to derail the thread (this argument has been done to death) but hindsight doesn't provide solutions for the future. Who do you think is going to pay when all the people who are in arrears on their mortgages file for bankruptcy? NE is a different side of the same coin.

NE is not the same as arrears, so no, it's not the same coin - as much as I wish it was. You see I'm in NE of about 220K but I'm not in arrears. I'm crippled by it, but I'll continue to crawl along. And I won't be in arrears as long as I continue to make my mortgage payments.
But you are right, there is going to be no solution for me as long as I continue to pay my mortgage. I'm expected to crawl along, which I'll do as that's the bed I bought into.

I think the thing people need to consider is - what happens when people like me decide it's not worth crawling for anymore? I mean the banks got bailed out, which I'm paying for. They'll increase the taxes so I'll pay more for less services. If they don't give something back to these people, it'll no longer be worth their while to persist.
People will take a lot, probably a lot more tbh, but they will only take so much.

Sleepy

Deleted User wrote: »

Then why doesn't the same rationale apply to the greedy bankers who rubber stamped the same crazy loans? Billions of euros of taxpayers money goes to rescuing the banks who behaved worst out of all of this, yet the ordinary people who just wanted an ordinary life and to be able to pay for a roof over their family's head are left to the wolves?? These people who once represented the best, brightest hopes of our society, the upwardly mobile, career focused young people who were gazumped and pressurised by vested interests on all sides (most of whom came out of all this without a scratch), they just "did it to themselves"??

If Ireland ever reaches the point where that's representative of the prevailing thinking on this issue, i will be on the first 747 out of here.

The same rationale *should* have applied to the bankers. They, however, were well in with the people continuously elected by the very same population now struggling with their negative equity.

I don't see how what's been done can be undone. Any debt forgiveness is simply burdening our children with the responsibility to pay back our generation's foolishness and with our current budget deficits and impending pension crisis do you not think we've already burdened them with enough?

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

I don't see how what's been done can be undone. Any debt forgiveness is simply burdening our children with the responsibility to pay back our generation's foolishness and with our current budget deficits and impending pension crisis do you not think we've already burdened them with enough?

I honestly think the solution I've proposed has merit for all sides concerned. It's not debt forgiveness, 100% of the money borrowed gets paid back. Its probably not ideal for the banks, certainly not for the homeowner, but I honestly think that in a system where every side assumes risk, it's morally wrong of all sides but the one who can't to wash their hands of the matter and refuse to accept some of the consequences and shoulder some of the cost. I think it could form the basis for a political solution to some of the issues around negative equity trade ups, IF there were enough political will to push it through.

Like I said, the biggest losers are the homeowners who would pay up to 150% of the value of their homes (plus a considerable amount of interest on repayments over and above that) but at least they would be able to live in a suitable property for their needs. The least the banks could do is tie up a little capital (which they would likely be well repaid for) suck it up and get on board, even if just as an act of contrition for their behaviour in the boom.

pobber1

Zulu wrote: »

NE is not the same as arrears, so no, it's not the same coin - as much as I wish it was. You see I'm in NE of about 220K but I'm not in arrears. I'm crippled by it, but I'll continue to crawl along. And I won't be in arrears as long as I continue to make my mortgage payments.
But you are right, there is going to be no solution for me as long as I continue to pay my mortgage. I'm expected to crawl along, which I'll do as that's the bed I bought into.

I think the thing people need to consider is - what happens when people like me decide it's not worth crawling for anymore? I mean the banks got bailed out, which I'm paying for. They'll increase the taxes so I'll pay more for less services. If they don't give something back to these people, it'll no longer be worth their while to persist.
People will take a lot, probably a lot more tbh, but they will only take so much.

I guess the point I was trying to make (badly) is that someone in extreme NE should be able to press the reset button just like someone in arrears. Expecting people to "crawl" along is just cruel and unusual punishment.

Bankruptcy legislation is supposed to be designed to let people admit their mistake, attempt to rectify it and to start their life over. You are absolutely correct when you say people will only take so much until they walk away.

Zulu

pobber1 wrote: »

I guess the point I was trying to make (badly) is that someone in extreme NE should be able to press the reset button just like someone in arrears.

But they shouldn't, they signed the deal; they bought in, they should be made to pay.

Expecting people to "crawl" along is just cruel and unusual punishment.

Well that's capitalism.

Where it become unpalatable is when "some" people are allowed to be forgiven. Bailing out the banks was the problem. Allowing the rich to "reset" at the cost of the rest was unfair. Just as allowing the NE to "reset" is unfair. But as Sleepy said - what is done is done. We shouldn't compound the problem. So we make this generation suffer. Suffer badly. It's not fair, but thats how it goes.

Unless we tear down the whole system & start again - and I'll be honest, it's an idea I've been beginning to warm to. Iceland seem to do ok.

hmmm

Deleted User wrote: »

and unable to move to a larger home to start a family

Perhaps I missed the discussion on this. What's wrong with raising a child in an apartment? Is having a house and a garden now a requirement for raising children?

woodoo

If i bought an apartment for 300k in 06 and now it was worth about 100K i'd hand back the keys and leave the country or declare bankrupt.

Those sort of people need help just like people who lose their job get help by way of welfare. They made a bad decision and that was it. They don't deserve to carry that amount of debt forever. The best solution is to hand back the property and move on. They could be banned from buying property for 20 years or so as part of a deal.

Zulu

hmmm wrote: »

Perhaps I missed the discussion on this. What's wrong with raising a child in an apartment?

Nothing, assuming your apartment is big enough & the associated area has suitable resources (similar to say Sweden or other European countries). However thats a MASSIVE assumption that doesn't apply to the vast majority of "apartments" built in Ireland during the boom years.
And please don't forget all the unfinished developments. Sadly we can't compare our apartments to those abroad.

woodoo wrote: »

If i bought an apartment for 300k in 06 and now it was worth about 100K i'd hand back the keys and leave the country or declare bankrupt.

Firstly handing back the keys means nothing. Secondly you'd be taking a financial dump on all your friends and family. Thirdly bankruptcy is, as it stands, not any better.

All in all your solution stresses the lack of knowledge you have for real peoples real situations.

Besides, I don't want to leave my country - why should I be drummed out by incompetent and corrupt politicians?

Those sort of people need help just like people who lose their job get help by way of welfare. They made a bad decision and that was it. They don't deserve to carry that amount of debt forever.

I appreciated your compassion & I agree, but sadly I don't see any solutions.

The best solution is to hand back the property and move on.

Currently, in the real world, it's not.

hmmm

hmmm wrote: »

Perhaps I missed the discussion on this. What's wrong with raising a child in an apartment? Is having a house and a garden now a requirement for raising children?

Of course not. It's not a question of house versus apartment, that was just the example I gave. It's a question of whether a property is suitable for your particular family situation as it has developed or not, and whether it can accommodate your family's needs as it grows over the long term. It could equally be a case of trading up to a larger apartment for a couple of crucial extra bedrooms for example. Houses don't suit everybody.

Apartments are not unsuitable for family life just by virtue of the fact that they're apartments.

Zulu wrote: »

Nothing, assuming your apartment is big enough & the associated area has suitable resources (similar to say Sweden or other European countries). However thats a MASSIVE assumption that doesn't apply to the vast majority of "apartments" built in Ireland during the boom years.
And please don't forget all the unfinished developments. Sadly we can't compare our apartments to those abroad.

Yes, exactly. Irish apartments by and large don't have facilities which are up to the standard of European and American apartments. No rubbish management systems, service lifts, laundry rooms, drying facilities, storage facilities, and much much more, and crucially, our property management sector is entirely unregulated, and is a boon for unscrupulous management companies and developers looking to shirk their responsibilities and overcharge their residents.

All of this will probably be addressed in future planning legislation, but our lawmakers have bigger fish to fry right now, and I wouldn't hold my breath.

pobber1

Zulu wrote: »

But they shouldn't, they signed the deal; they bought in, they should be made to pay.
Well that's capitalism.

Bankruptcy is one of the corner stones capitalism.

jased10s

It's a bad situation that wont get any better with the way the country has and is being run ( or lack of)

Personally i would suggest looking after yourself .

1 Pay minimun towards the morgage ( 200 a month as they have to accept something and you seem compliant and will take years to finally repocess ).

2 save as much as you can that you would have spent on said on morgage.

3 get the feck out of this cess pool just before baliffes come a knocking.

The gouverment has let you down , europe wants you to pay bankers debts so we make europe look stable and a good bet.

Or stay here and pay USC + quinnes levy + untold stealth taxes + no real health care or dentists + i could go on.

At least jesus threw the money lenders out of the temple because he knew the real deal.

The morgage holders are living in a prison but they are allowed out to work. Well aint that great.

You people had fight in you against the brits but seem to have lost your balls of late.

The country is rotten and only benifets the scammers .

And tourists are not coming back because you can only see raping profits now rarther investing and keeping a steady stream of vistors year after year.

RIP Ireland.

jased10s

jased10s wrote: »

Personally i would suggest looking after yourself...

While i can understand your point of view, i think people like you, with attitudes like that, are part of the problem here. Everybody "looking after number one" without any regard to social consequences, moral justice, or long term societal issues, is what got us into this mess, and what's keeping us in it.

I've read your posts in other threads, whingeing about the state of Ireland, and Bertie this and Bertie that, and then you come out with this "looking after yourself" rubbish? Greedy people on the take, "looking after themselves" is what Bertie and Co thrived on. It's what got him in power, and kept him there all through. It's what bought him and FF their last term in power (the one in which they arguably did the worst of their long term damage to Ireland) even when it was plain as day that he was utterly crooked and his party was filthily corrupt. He knew that in Ireland, you can buy power and elections, and that if you give everybody a grubby little taste of the spoils they will look after you when the time comes, regardless of the level of impropriety you're up to elsewhere.

"Ah sure that doesn't affect me", or "i don't care as long as it doesn't take money out of my pocket", or "i would suggest looking after yourself". All of these phrases are the anthems of the cancerous "look the other way" culture that ate the Ireland i grew up in away. It's unrecognisable from the country it was only a decade or two ago, because of people with that attitude, who bleed things dry with their selfishness and their indifference to the damage they cause elsewhere and then wash their hands of the consequences when it suits them later on.

You say "the country is rotten and only benefits the scammers"? Well i say we have people with attitudes like yours to thank for it.

Zulu

jased10s wrote: »

Personally i would suggest looking after yourself .
...
RIP Ireland.

Spoken like a person who doesn't have a mortgage.

You're little plan is fine if:

• you have no family
• you have no friends
• you have no ties
• you have no sense of patriotism
• you have no concern for the future of your country
• and ultimately you couldn't care less about any of the people in Ireland you leave behind to pay for cleaning up your mess

So in short, your plan is fine, if you are a sociopath.

creedp

jased10s wrote: »

It's a bad situation that wont get any better with the way the country has and is being run ( or lack of)

Personally i would suggest looking after yourself .

1 Pay minimun towards the morgage ( 200 a month as they have to accept something and you seem compliant and will take years to finally repocess ).

2 save as much as you can that you would have spent on said on morgage.

3 get the feck out of this cess pool just before baliffes come a knocking.

The gouverment has let you down , europe wants you to pay bankers debts so we make europe look stable and a good bet.

Or stay here and pay USC + quinnes levy + untold stealth taxes + no real health care or dentists + i could go on.

At least jesus threw the money lenders out of the temple because he knew the real deal.

The morgage holders are living in a prison but they are allowed out to work. Well aint that great.

You people had fight in you against the brits but seem to have lost your balls of late.

The country is rotten and only benifets the scammers .

And tourists are not coming back because you can only see raping profits now rarther investing and keeping a steady stream of vistors year after year.

RIP Ireland.

The banks must stamp down hard on this activity. Why should one mortgage holder decide he is more worthy that another mortgage holder. Because they/you are worth it? Who decides which mortgage holders have been left down/are in prison and which are not? Fair play to them/you for considering your position more important that all the other mortgage holders who continue to pay their way as they commited themselved to.

The unfortunate thing is that there are opportunists who are already at this game in the anticipation of a debt write down. Its time for this issue to be resolved asap to ensure that the scammers are brought to book. There has been enough scamming of the general population of this country already without another cohort taking the p1ss. Surely it is possible for the banks to request income details from mortgage holders who are 'unable' to afford their repayments and to throw the book at people who are pursuing this strategy?

creedp

creedp wrote: »

The unfortunate thing is that there are opportunists who are already at this game in the anticipation of a debt write down. Its time for this issue to be resolved asap to ensure that the scammers are brought to book....

Unfortunately, successive mortgage foreclosure moratoria have been very publicly announced to let mortgage holders know that no matter what they do their home won't be taken from them by banks. It was a way of politicians kicking the can down the road rather than dealing with the issue properly at the time, and now it's grown into a situation where strategic default, and "can pay but can't be bothered" are becoming more common. Do we ever think anything through long term in Ireland?:mad:

My own feeling from a purely idealistic point of view is that by right, banks should be made to atone for their misdeeds by writing down the value of ALL negative equity mortgages on their books to reflect the maximum amounts they SHOULD have been lending to each individual borrower as per the rules, and based on the income disclosures at the time of application. Everybody, across the board, would only get held accountable for the maximum amounts they should have been lent, and over and above that, you're on your own. Either pay your mortgage, or you're fair game, and if you "inflated" your income at the time to get a bigger loan, tough.

But then, that's idealism. This is not an ideal situation, and we own the majority of these banks now, so the losses come straight back on us, and everybody pays for them one way or another. Socialising the disastrous financial consequenses of the banks actions to every Irish tax payer, regardless of how prudent each of us individually were or weren't during the boom is not a just solution here, but then neither is letting one particularly unfortunate group who played a part (but only a part) in signing themselves into slavery bear all the cost of it for decades to come.

It's an incredibly difficult problem which is being made more difficult by people at every level of involvement trying to wash their hands of their responsibility, from individual borrowers, to banks, to politicians, to other european countries and financial and political institutions. Nobody wants to carry their part of the can, and anybody with a get-out clause is using it, all the way up the chain. The only people who are bearing their responsibility here are the ordinary people who are NOT trying to strategically default, who believe that honesty, and living up to your commitments (however foolishly they were entered into) is the right thing to do. Ironically, they are the ones being hit by far the hardest in financial terms for their honesty...

Welease

Deleted User wrote: »

Ironically, they are the ones being hit by far the hardest in financial terms for their honesty...

Actually they are not! People who lived within their means and purchased (or rented) appropriately are the ones who are being hit the hardest. We are being asked to contintually pay more taxes/service charges to facility the poor economic decisions of others.

Welease

Welease wrote: »

Actually they are not! People who lived within their means and purchased (or rented) appropriately are the ones who are being hit the hardest. We are being asked to contintually pay more taxes/service charges to facility the poor economic decisions of others.

But so are they, and they have higher mortgage costs to service too.

???

Zulu

Welease wrote: »

Actually they are not! People who lived within their means and purchased (or rented) appropriately are the ones who are being hit the hardest. We are being asked to contintually pay more taxes/service charges to facility the poor economic decisions of others.

Well...

if you rented during the boom years and never bought, all you are paying for is the bail out. You didn't pay stamp duty, you won't be in NE, you won't be paying a property tax, you won't be paying a household charge. If you continued to rent during the boom, frankly, your sorted.

Those who bought, are paying for the bail out, and (may) have paid stamp duty, and will be paying the household charge, and will be subject to the property tax.

Welease

Deleted User wrote: »

But so are they, and they have higher mortgage costs to service too.

???

They are repaying money they requested to borrow..
I am repaying money (via taxes and service charges) that I didn't borrow because of poor decisions made by the banks and those mortgage holders.. I also have to repay the mortgage that I have for my property.

I fail to see how they are being "hit by far the hardest"...

I have a mortgage that I service, would you be happy to fund an equivalent reduction in my outstanding mortgage?

Zulu

Welease wrote: »

I am repaying money (via taxes and service charges) that I didn't borrow because of poor decisions made by the banks and those mortgage holders..

So are they.

I also have to repay the mortgage that I have for my property.

So do they.

I fail to see how they are being "hit by far the hardest"...

So who's being hit harder?
The banks? The property developers?? Those who didn't buy???

Welease

Welease wrote: »

They are repaying money they requested to borrow..
I am repaying money (via taxes and service charges) that I didn't borrow because of poor decisions made by the banks and those mortgage holders.. I also have to repay the mortgage that I have for my property.

Wait, wait wait. Does the fact that they requested to borrow it mean that they are not being hit hard by having to repay it?

That's an entirely different argument.

They still have to pay it.

And in addition to that, they also have to pay all the same taxes, service charges, and bailout costs we all do, and probably considerably more in property, stamp duty, and related taxes than many who rented or stayed out of the market, as has already been posted.

This is not a question of the righteousness or cleverness of their decision to enter into the loan itself. You can't disallow their suffering because they entered into an agreement of their own free will. It's a question of who is being hit hardest, plain and simple, and i would argue that the people who bought at the top of the market, at the highest cost and who attempt to be honest, and not run away from their responsibilities, and instead struggle to pay 100% of their (much higher) monthly mortgage payment without trying to underpay or strategically default, as well as shouldering the equal cost of all the same taxes and charges as everybody else, are being hit Hardest.

By the way, not everybody who bought in the boom bought way beyond their means, and not everybody was taken in by the bullsh1t from all the usual suspects. I know very many young people who compromised on living space, location, facilities, proximity to work, and many other aspects of life in order to maintain a sensible level of mortgage repayment overhead, and all of them are now in the situation above, and are all also subject to the same taxes and charges as everyone else.

Welease

Zulu wrote: »

So are they.
So do they.
So who's being hit harder?
The banks? The property developers?? Those who didn't buy???

Those who are not going to be bailed out by these solutions...

Zulu

Welease wrote: »

Those who are not going to be bailed out by these solutions...

You mean those who aren't in NE? Those who didn't pay over the odds and still have equity? How are they "hit by far the hardest", pray tell?

Welease

Deleted User wrote: »

Wait, wait wait. Does the fact that they requested to borrow it mean that they are not being hit hard by having to repay it?

That's an entirely different argument.

They still have to pay it.

And in addition to that, they also have to pay all the same taxes, service charges, and bailout costs we all do, and probably considerably more in property, stamp duty, and related taxes than many who rented or stayed out of the market, as has already been posted..

So they get to pay all of the things that i have to pay for my property...
So why can't I get a bailout under this plan then? If you want the banks to take a hit (which we will have to pay for) so they can get a bigger house, why don't I get a similar reduction in what I have to pay the bank for my house?

I'm not against NE solutions, but I am against a NE solution that requires me to pay more to banks so they can move to a bigger better house while I'm expected to continue to pay 100% of what I borrowed because I live within my means.

Deleted User wrote: »

This is not a question of the righteousness or cleverness of their decision to enter into the loan itself. You can't disallow their suffering because they entered into an agreement of their own free will. It's a question of who is being hit hardest, plain and simple, and i would argue that the people who bought at the top of the market, at the highest cost and who attempt to be honest, and not run away from their responsibilities, and instead struggle to pay 100% of their (much higher) monthly mortgage payment without trying to underpay or strategically default, as well as shouldering the equal cost of all the same taxes and charges as everybody else, are being hit Hardest.

So as per my question.. I bought a house in Dec 2007 (close to the top of the market).. How are they being hit harder than me? and why should I now have to pay more money to banks in order for them to upgrade again?

Deleted User wrote: »

By the way, not everybody who bought in the boom bought way beyond their means, and not everybody was taken in by the bullsh1t from all the usual suspects. I know very many young people who compromised on living space, location, facilities, proximity to work, and many other aspects of life in order to maintain a sensible level of mortgage repayment overhead, and all of them are now in the situation above, and are all also subject to the same taxes and charges as everyone else.

Correct.. but your plan isn't taking a lot of them (or me) into account.. You are asking me to pay more money so they can upgrade to bigger better houses.

Welease

Zulu wrote: »

You mean those who aren't in NE? Those who didn't pay over the odds and still have equity? How are they "hit by far the hardest", pray tell?

MackDaddi is proposing a trade up equity sharing deal somewhat based on the principal that there are those who bought small and now want to move into a larger house.. They will benefit from this arrangement. I agree they will indeed benefit (and I also agree there does need to a solution to those who can't currently trade).

There are many people in NE who don't want to/need to/can't (etc.) trade up but they will be expected to contribute to the capital required to fund this plan (via taxes).

MackDaddi believes the former are being "hit by far the hardest", I disagree and believe the it is the latter who gain nothing from this type of arrangement, are still stuck with NE, but have to contribute so the former gets to live in a better house, and therefore are "hit by far the hardest"..

Zulu

Welease wrote: »

MackDaddi believes the former are being "hit by far the hardest", I disagree and believe the it is the latter who gain nothing from this type of arrangement, are still stuck with NE, but have to contribute so the former gets to live in a better house, and therefore are "hit by far the hardest"..

I think I see what you're saying now. Essentially, MackDaddi is right - currently - but if such a deal were available, then they'd no longer be hit the hardest - that would be those who are in NE but do not wish to move. Is that about it?

I think the point is - someone has to take the hit. If you "rescue" NE mortgages, then it's the regular mortgages that are worst hit so you'll need to "rescue" them. Then the renters, and so on.
Point is it was criminal to rescue the banks/developers in the first place.

How about the following solution: any over-payments of NE mortgages are tax deductible. This would benefit the banks, as it'd lower their loan book & reduce their risk, which would benefit Johnnie tax payer who nationalised the banks. It would benefit the NE mortgages (obviously) but encourage the populace to reduce their exposure.

I understand this isn't far on non-NE mortgages, but they have equity so wouldn't be struggling as much.

....this is just a quick thought so I'm not being a nay-sayer; being part of the solution and all that.

Welease

Zulu wrote: »

I think I see what you're saying now. Essentially, MackDaddi is right - currently - but if such a deal were available, then they'd no longer be hit the hardest - that would be those who are in NE but do not wish to move. Is that about it?.

Yes, and No I still disagree with the "hardest" bit.. they are equal to everyone now in that (as you said) they pay the same increased taxes, costs etc.. and they got the property the requested at the price they were happy to pay.. Same as everyone else.. Thats not being the hardest hit..
Now they are in NE.. but so are many other people.. This solution helps only a subsection who want to move to a bigger house, so they go from being equal to bailed out like the banks..
I fail to see how they can be considered "hardest hit" above anyone else.. and why only they as homeowners should be bailed out, and why we should have to pay for it.

Zulu wrote: »

I think the point is - someone has to take the hit. If you "rescue" NE mortgages, then it's the regular mortgages that are worst hit so you'll need to "rescue" them. Then the renters, and so on.
Point is it was criminal to rescue the banks/developers in the first place.

Correct.. Why should they get a "fix" that I have to pay for, but yet I still have to pay 100% of my mortgage?

So then we expand it to me and everyone else, and we all pay for it via taxes and loss of services.. End result.. sh1t load of churn and cost and we still end up paying the same money in the end, plus the costs of quango's to manage the fun..
And in 20 years time, we have the same families complaining that their "family home" is being sold by the bank to refund the cost of the debt (as per the agreement) and they can't afford it.. so we end up paying for that as well.. yadda yadda yadda...
It's time for people to realise there is no free cash to bail these things out, yes a system does need to be put in place, but not a system which just transfers the debt to everyone else and back again..
It's also worth noting that many of the same posters on here who would want this also complain the can't afford to pay extra taxes.. So where do they expect the money to come from? these plans can push many people who are currently just barely afloat into financial issues because some folks now decide they want a house instead of the apartment they bought 5 years ago. I dont think thats a fair enough reason to potentially bankrupt someone else.

Zulu wrote: »

How about the following solution: any over-payments of NE mortgages are tax deductible. This would benefit the banks, as it'd lower their loan book & reduce their risk. It would benefit the NE mortgages (obviously) but encourage the populace to reduce their exposure.

I understand this isn't far on non-NE mortgages, but they have equity so wouldn't be struggling as much.

....this is just a quick thought so I'm not being a nay-sayer; being part of the solution and all that.

Part of the problem is.. it will encourage many (like me) to jump on that benefit and pay a lot less tax.. End result.. you need to pay more tax, to cover our countries costs & defecit while those with minimal financial issues reap the benefit. Those on low income and struggling pay low levels (relative) of PAYE tax anyway. By all means.. be my guest


Edit - I should add, I don't intend my posts to belittle MackDaddi's suggestion, i think its right and proper that people suggest and discuss items. I do however believe that plans should be challenged to ensure they are realistic and viable and are not unconnected to the reality of the actual financial cost and impact of such a plan.

coolshannagh28

Everyone seems to have forgotten that by not enforcing the basic rule of losses to bondholders and investors in banks ,the low level borrowers are being unfairly punished .
All mortgages should be reset to current property values ,if something radical like this is not attempted the wave of default coming like a tidal wave will wipe out the banks and the sovereign . All debate on minor detail is irrelevant . The system will correct the original mistake of not enforcing losses but with dire consequences .

Welease

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Everyone seems to have forgotten that by not enforcing the basic rule of losses to bondholders and investors in banks ,the low level borrowers are being unfairly punished . .

The share value of bank stock was wiped out and taken into public ownership.. i.e. investors in banks lost their investments..

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

All mortgages should be reset to current property values ,if something radical like this is not attempted the wave of default coming like a tidal wave will wipe out the banks and the sovereign . All debate on minor detail is irrelevant . The system will correct the original mistake of not enforcing losses but with dire consequences .

So as we own the banks now, you want us to wipe out NE for everyone, and presumably we pay for this through our massively increased income taxes???

Welease

Welease wrote: »

I still disagree with the "hardest" bit..

I would just like to throw in a point of order or two on this.

First of all, I'm not proposing any tax write offs etc for anybody at anybody else's expense. That got dragged in at some point during the discussion.

Under the model i proposed, if it were worked as envisaged, firstly, the banks themselves (and hence the taxpayer) wouldn't be losing out, quite the opposite, they'd be in for a good chance of a very good return over time. Their liability (100k in the example i used earlier) would be limited, and recoverable in full at the cost of the homeowner (albeit after a long wait) and their upside, their potential profit (and thus the taxpayer's) would be unlimited in a rising market, but crucially, their loan book would have re-categorized the loan in question from being a non-performing, toxic, or stressed loan in negative equity to one which had now been restructured and was performing as per agreed terms. That bumps it up (in economic circles) to a higher grade asset on the banks books, improving the bank's position in the eyes of the markets. En masse, restructuring thousands of these loans and allowing the homeowner to bear the cost through a debt for equity swop in a rising market improves the bank's (and thus the country's) overall financial position, easing difficulties in accessing cash in the markets, and lowering borrowing costs to it's exchequer and it's citizens. That is a direct benefit to all of us.

Secondly, the last bailout of the banks included billions in cash (based on stress tested figures) to cover the banks against losses which possibly could have happened due to further falls, defaults, and realization of toxicity, negative equity, and so on, in their property portfolio. We have already paid them this money, in cash. It is gone, at high cost to us as a society, and we have had very little return for it so far, so why not start to demand some kind of return for it? This appears to be one such scheme which would benefit almost all parties involved in either the long or the short term (including the "hard hit" people spending comfortably on manageable mortgages which are well within their means or those who are renting without a care in the world).

Thirdly, and finally, on the same "hardest hit" point, if this proposal were ever adopted, any applicant for it, if successful, would still be paying 100% of their payments for historically what were the most expensive mortgages ever sold in the state, would be unable to ever sell their home, trade, or move, and at the end of the process (when they are dead) would pay over a further 50% of the value of their home, a total of a 150% mortgage or thereabouts. The first 100% would also have included a much higher amount of interest on the value of the larger initial principal loan, because prices were higher when they bought. In addition to this (once again) they will have also spent the last 20-30 years paying all the same stealth taxes, levies, bailout costs, and all the rest of it that everybody else will.

I fail to see how anyone else in Ireland will be harder hit than this cohort of people.

THEY are the biggest losers in this. They come out of this with half a property after paying 30 years of the highest mortgage and mortgage interest costs ever recorded here, and the same ridiculous taxes as everyone else has to pay. The state and the taxpayer gets the benefit of them paying for their own negative equity TWICE (once through the stress tested bailout payments paid to the banks, which they paid their share of in taxes the same as everyone, and one MORE time through their own direct long-term refinancing/equity swopping of their debt and the pillaging of their house (which they will already have fully paid for) after they're dead.

All they get in return is to live their life in a modest house and raise a family.

How much harder is it possible to hit someone than that??? Should we arrange for a representative of the bank to come around and dance on their graves, and point and laugh?

Welease wrote: »

Edit - I should add, I don't intend my posts to belittle MackDaddi's suggestion...

Don't worry, they aren't taken like that. This is political and economic debate. We're all big boys here. I'm interested more than anything in finding the flaws i may have missed in anything I've proposed, so criticize away.

Your input is very much appreciated!

Welease

Deleted User wrote: »

I would just like to throw in a point of order or two on this.

First of all, I'm not proposing any tax write offs etc for anybody at anybody else's expense. That got dragged in at some point during the discussion.

Under the model i proposed, if it were worked as envisaged, firstly, the banks themselves (and hence the taxpayer) wouldn't be losing out, quite the opposite, they'd be in for a good chance of a very good return over time. Their liability (100k in the example i used earlier) would be limited, and recoverable in full at the cost of the homeowner (albeit after a long wait) and their upside, their potential profit (and thus the taxpayer's) would be unlimited in a rising market, but crucially, their loan book would have re-categorized the loan in question from being a non-performing, toxic, or stressed loan in negative equity to one which had now been restructured and was performing as per agreed terms. That bumps it up (in economic circles) to a higher grade asset on the banks books, improving the bank's position in the eyes of the markets. En masse, restructuring thousands of these loans and allowing the homeowner to bear the cost through a debt for equity swop in a rising market improves the bank's (and thus the country's) overall financial position, easing difficulties in accessing cash in the markets, and lowering borrowing costs to it's exchequer and it's citizens. That is a direct benefit to all of us.

You are mixing up quiet a few methods here making your point, and they don't all have relevance, and some i would argue are basically incorrect.

If the loans are being repaid as per your example they are not toxic, non performing loans.. They are loans being repayed, it just happens that the mortgage holder has an asset worth less than what they will end up paying for it, and that currently prevents them from trading up.. Solving the trade issue doesn't add or remove toxic loans form the system to my mind. If the loan is in fact toxic or non performing, there is absolutely no way that any bank with an ounce of common sense is going to allow the owner to borrow more money against that (or any similar) asset. They have proven they cannot repay the already smaller sum.
Borrowing more money to fund higher grade housing in the middle of a housing bust does not improve the bank position in the eyes of the market, it just means we own even more property with less % being paid off per year and higher borrowing costs.. during one of the largest recessions ever to hit. Argueably financial suicide.

That aside, in order to purchase the new higher value asset the bank (we) must borrow money from international lenders and pay interest to fund something which doesnt have the value we are borrowing against.. If we can even get the funding, we will have to pay interest on this over the 20 years.. You have said the mortgage holder wont have to pay any more per month, so the assumption is that the taxpayer will have to step in (via taxes) and consume the day to day running cost of these extensions, which will run into billions..

All of this will be based on a bet that in x years time (after the owner dies) the % portion owned by us is greater than the original NE paid for, the cost of funding the new bridging loans and the cost of administering those loans and disposing of the asset in a few decades..
Yes there is a chance for a very good return.. there is also a colossal chance of it becoming a compound disaster.

Deleted User wrote: »

Secondly, the last bailout of the banks included billions in cash (based on stress tested figures) to cover the banks against losses which possibly could have happened due to further falls, defaults, and realization of toxicity, negative equity, and so on, in their property portfolio. We have already paid them this money, in cash. It is gone, at high cost to us as a society, and we have had very little return for it so far, so why not start to demand some kind of return for it? This appears to be one such scheme which would benefit almost all parties involved in either the long or the short term (including the "hard hit" people spending comfortably on manageable mortgages which are well within their means or those who are renting without a care in the world).

As you said.. the money is gone.. it not longer is available.. so there is 0 in the pot to fund your scheme.. The money will have to be borrowed internationally and paid for via further taxes because the assets in question don't have enough value to cover the cost of your scheme.
How much to we need to borrow? and who will pay for it?

Deleted User wrote: »

Thirdly, and finally, on the same "hardest hit" point, if this proposal were ever adopted, any applicant for it, if successful, would still be paying 100% of their payments for historically what were the most expensive mortgages ever sold in the state, would be unable to ever sell their home, trade, or move, and at the end of the process (when they are dead) would pay over a further 50% of the value of their home, a total of a 150% mortgage or thereabouts. The first 100% would also have included a much higher amount of interest on the value of the larger initial principal loan, because prices were higher when they bought. In addition to this (once again) they will have also spent the last 20-30 years paying all the same stealth taxes, levies, bailout costs, and all the rest of it that everybody else will.

I fail to see how anyone else in Ireland will be harder hit than this cohort of people.

THEY are the biggest losers in this. They come out of this with half a property after paying 30 years of the highest mortgage and mortgage interest costs ever recorded here, and the same ridiculous taxes as everyone else has to pay. The state and the taxpayer gets the benefit of them paying for their own negative equity TWICE (once through the stress tested bailout payments paid to the banks, which they paid their share of in taxes the same as everyone, and one MORE time through their own direct long-term refinancing/equity swopping of their debt and the pillaging of their house (which they will already have fully paid for) after they're dead.

All they get in return is to live their life in a modest house and raise a family.

How much harder is it possible to hit someone than that??? Should we arrange for a representative of the bank to come around and dance on their graves, and point and laugh?

But thats not the point you made.. The point you made was that NE owners who want to trade up were by far the hardest hit.. hence your plan to help them.

Deleted User wrote: »

The only people who are bearing their responsibility here are the ordinary people who are NOT trying to strategically default, who believe that honesty, and living up to your commitments (however foolishly they were entered into) is the right thing to do. Ironically, they are the ones being hit by far the hardest in financial terms for their honesty...

They are hit the very same as any other NE owner like me.. I wouldnt get to avail of the intial scheme you presented, so how could they be hit "far harder" than me.. at worst they are treated the same as me.. at best they got offered a way to get their next house, and I get to help pay for the cost (because I can guarantee I won't get my % of that house back in 40 years).


The long and short of it is...

If someone can show figures on how a plan like this works and the costs involved then they can make claims as to how beneficial it is and the value to doing so.. But making statements about possibly making money 30 years (based on colossal cost to us now when we already have an unaffordable defecit) from now hold little real value in the real world.. It was exactly the same "financial plan" that those folks who want kids had when they bought their now undersized appartment and in 5 years knew it would be worth 100K more and they could move to a smart new house with a garden. It isn't real economics.. and it makes collosal assumptions that everything that needs to happen happens exactly as planned..

Do we even know how much NE exists? and how much we would have to borrow from the markets to fund this?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Under the model i proposed, if it were worked as envisaged, firstly, the banks themselves (and hence the taxpayer) wouldn't be losing out, quite the opposite, they'd be in for a good chance of a very good return over time. Their liability (100k in the example i used earlier) would be limited, and recoverable in full at the cost of the homeowner (albeit after a long wait) and their upside, their potential profit (and thus the taxpayer's) would be unlimited in a rising market, but crucially, their loan book would have re-categorized the loan in question from being a non-performing, toxic, or stressed loan in negative equity to one which had now been restructured and was performing as per agreed terms. That bumps it up (in economic circles) to a higher grade asset on the banks books, improving the bank's position in the eyes of the markets.

The share in the new home wouldn't be classified as a loan - it would become perhaps an investment but one in which would be very difficult to value, and very difficult to realise if the bank needed to. It would be difficult to justify paying €100k now for an unknown return at an unknown point in the future. If the owners are in their 30s now the bank might not see any money till the 2060s or 2070s.

The bank would presumably have to fund this €100k over the period so any increase in the value of the share in the home is not total profit.

Edit: The loan currently wouldn't be classified as non performing or stressed if the repayments are being met.
If the payments weren't being met there wouldn't be a hope of increasing the exposure.

coolshannagh28

Welease wrote: »

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Everyone seems to have forgotten that by not enforcing the basic rule of losses to bondholders and investors in banks ,the low level borrowers are being unfairly punished . .

The share value of bank stock was wiped out and taken into public ownership.. i.e. investors in banks lost their investments..

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

All mortgages should be reset to current property values ,if something radical like this is not attempted the wave of default coming like a tidal wave will wipe out the banks and the sovereign . All debate on minor detail is irrelevant . The system will correct the original mistake of not enforcing losses but with dire consequences .

.

So as we own the banks now, you want us to wipe out NE for everyone, and presumably we pay for this through our massively increased income taxes???

The system will correct itself ,the losses will have to be realised and borne . Whether this is paid for by bondholders investors ,depositors , taxes or deflation .

Welease

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The system will correct itself ,the losses will have to be realised and borne . Whether this is paid for by bondholders investors ,depositors , taxes or deflation .

So you want us to wipe out NE and pay via taxes instead... whats the point?

jased10s

Deleted User wrote: »

While i can understand your point of view, i think people like you, with attitudes like that, are part of the problem here. Everybody "looking after number one" without any regard to social consequences, moral justice, or long term societal issues, is what got us into this mess, and what's keeping us in it.

I've read your posts in other threads, whingeing about the state of Ireland, and Bertie this and Bertie that, and then you come out with this "looking after yourself" rubbish? Greedy people on the take, "looking after themselves" is what Bertie and Co thrived on. It's what got him in power, and kept him there all through. It's what bought him and FF their last term in power (the one in which they arguably did the worst of their long term damage to Ireland) even when it was plain as day that he was utterly crooked and his party was filthily corrupt. He knew that in Ireland, you can buy power and elections, and that if you give everybody a grubby little taste of the spoils they will look after you when the time comes, regardless of the level of impropriety you're up to elsewhere.

"Ah sure that doesn't affect me", or "i don't care as long as it doesn't take money out of my pocket", or "i would suggest looking after yourself". All of these phrases are the anthems of the cancerous "look the other way" culture that ate the Ireland i grew up in away. It's unrecognisable from the country it was only a decade or two ago, because of people with that attitude, who bleed things dry with their selfishness and their indifference to the damage they cause elsewhere and then wash their hands of the consequences when it suits them later on.

You say "the country is rotten and only benefits the scammers"? Well i say we have people with attitudes like yours to thank for it.

You know you do actually agree with me that its a corroup country and country thats rotten.

And MrMack why do you think i have the attude of looking after myself when all i see is scams and corrouption and the tax payer paying for other high flyers mistakes. Have you ever heard of the sayings "if you cant beat them join them" or " monkey see monkey do ".

Maybe you should live in another country for a while and experience sensability and consistancy.

You did a very typical boardsie thing by going through old posts and commenting on them and not the debate at hand. Ill have to have a lookie at yours and pull you on a few things maybe.

As to whinging well thats your view and if you lable me a whinger thats your prerogative. I call it as i see it and if your happy to smile while being rode by the gouverment then thats your thing.

Now if you have issue then take it to PM as it would otherwise derail the thread. And i do so hope you do.

jased10s

Zulu wrote: »

Spoken like a person who doesn't have a mortgage.

You're little plan is fine if:

• you have no family
• you have no friends
• you have no ties
• you have no sense of patriotism
• you have no concern for the future of your country
• and ultimately you couldn't care less about any of the people in Ireland you leave behind to pay for cleaning up your mess

So in short, your plan is fine, if you are a sociopath.

I'd trade that crystal ball in Zulu it seems to be faulty, i have a morgage albet 10,000 in NE , But then again thats not as bad as others.

[*]you have no family -> i do
[*]you have no friends -> i do
[*]you have no ties -> i do
[*]you have no sense of patriotism -> not for ireland and seems the gouverment and most people in power do not by their actions that have destroyed the country
[*]you have no concern for the future of your country -> same as last response.
[*]and ultimately you couldn't care less about any of the people in Ireland you leave behind to pay for cleaning up your mess -> also see last response , take Quinns as an example , and there are many more.

jased10s

jased10s wrote: »

...lots of self righteous, I'll informed rubbish...

I refuse to argue with you anymore. Your points of view are subjective and selfish, and key parts of your argument are based solely on your own opinion.

I could pick your last post apart and address each issue I have with it point by point, but frankly, why bother? You're not open to intelligent debate, you've made your mind up based on your own limited and selfish point of view, and besides, it would make my head hurt to come down to your level of argument.