"Irish were gripped by Greed" says Head of Credit Suisse

HellFireClub

THE Irish boss of a leading Swiss bank has said that Ireland since the beginning of the 2000s was gripped by greed, complacency and materialism.Michael O'Sullivan, the managing director of Credit Suisse's private banking division, added that it was vital that Ireland's future generations learn lessons from the economy.
Mr O'Sullivan was speaking as he delivered a keynote address at University College Cork's autumn conferrings.
The banker said Ireland's future generations have to learn to ask hard questions.
"With the benefit of hindsight of the kinds of illogic, materialism, greed and complacency that gripped Ireland in the 2000s, resist the 'madness' of crowds, question things that from an ethical or logical point of view don't seem right, and always try to have an independent view of what is going on around you," he said.
Mr O'Sullivan said there was no alternative to learning the harsh lessons from what had happened in Ireland since 2008.
"(They must) look around at the wreckage of Ireland's post-bubble economy and the broader international crisis and become engaged with efforts to recover and reform."
He said that while there were daunting challenges facing Ireland and the global economy, there were also opportunities.
He stressed that a key factor in Ireland's future would be education and the quality of the university sector.
Credit Suisse has almost 50,000 employees worldwide and last year enjoyed revenues of €21bn.


Personally I couldn't disagree more, only insoafar as I think the majority of Irish people looked at the boom as like some kind of difficult sibling, something that had to be suffered more than welcomed.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/irish-were-gripped-by-greed-says-bank-boss-3279502.html

Nody

HellFireClub wrote: »

Personally I couldn't disagree more, only insoafar as I think the majority of Irish people looked at the boom as like some kind of difficult sibling, something that had to be suffered more than welcomed.

If the majority of people felt that way then please explain the number of people taking out loans way above their means, the expensive parties and multiple expensive vacation trips the Irish people were taking and more importantly would not explain the big problem people have today once the property boom crashed. If the majority of people where "sensible" there should not be this much of an issue with a recession...

Gurgle

Nody wrote: »

If the majority of people felt that way then please explain the number of people taking out loans way above their means, the expensive parties and multiple expensive vacation trips the Irish people were taking and more importantly would not explain the big problem people have today once the property boom crashed. If the majority of people where "sensible" there should not be this much of an issue with a recession...

The majority were sensible. The majority didn't build up huge debts on extravagant lifestyle. The majority are feeling the pinch now due to the decreasing value of their salary, as less and less makes it past Revenue.

A sizable minority were not sensible.

mattser

Nody wrote: »

If the majority of people felt that way then please explain the number of people taking out loans way above their means, the expensive parties and multiple expensive vacation trips the Irish people were taking and more importantly would not explain the big problem people have today once the property boom crashed. If the majority of people where "sensible" there should not be this much of an issue with a recession...

Spot on, Nody. While I accept that some are genuinely suffering, a lot of spoilt brats got their asses kicked, and don't know what hit them. This is more a wake up call than a recession.

Bits_n_Bobs

"A class action lawsuit by holocaust survivors was started in 1996[7] and settled in 2000, when a $1.25 billion settlement was reached between survivors and several financial services companies, including Credit Suisse"

"In 1999 Japan's Financial Supervisory Agency temporarily suspended the financial-products division's license to operate in Japan for "window dressing" as part of a larger investigation. Credit Suisse was selling derivatives that are often used by companies to hide losses on corporate balance sheets, a practice that is not necessarily illegal, but must comply with complicated new regulations."

"In 2006 Credit Suisse acknowledged misconduct for helping Iran and other countries hide transactions from US authorities and paid a $536 million settlement. The settlement was reached after a broader year-long investigation by the government, intended to put financial pressure on foreign countries to give up their nuclear arms plans"

"Credit Suisse is one of the financial services firms being investigated by US authorities for bundling mortgage loans with securities during the US housing boom. The company is accused of selling more than $100 billion in securities for residential mortgage loans form 2004 to 2007, while misrepresenting the risk of the underlying mortgages."

"As part of a global crackdown on tax evasion, Credit Suisse faced separate investigations by US, Brazilian, and several European authorities. In April 2008, Brazilian police arrested 14 Credit Suisse employees and former employees as part of a two year "Operation Switzerland" investigation which started in 2006."

"n 2011 Credit Suisse, facing a U.S. Department of Justice probe, agreed to settle claims they aided clients evade U.S. taxes through secret accounts and other dealings to avoid a formal federal indictment. The agreement reports to include paying more than US$1 billion in fines and releasing details on U.S. account holders and related deals where the bank may have aided clients in evading U.S. taxes.[31] Credit Suisse also reached a deal with German authorities in which it paid €150 million to settle similar claims.[32] Lloyds Banking Group, Barclays, and several other banks were involved with similar information stripping controversies around the same time as Credit Suisse."

(Source - Wikipedia)

Clearly these people know a lot about greed, so can probably recognise it when they see it. As a citizen of the disgraceful greedy Irish population I will be wearing sackcloth and ashes, while praying to financial gods such as Mr. Sullivan for forgiveness. REPENT YE SINNERS!!!

Greenmachine

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black then. :pac:
I agree about the quality of universities being crucial. But let's not forget the crucial requirement " Start right, finish right"I would argue that it is critically important that the education from an earlier stage models itself toward the way in which students learn in university. It should contain more teamwork and expected learning outcomes especially by the time students reach secondary school. I am continually shocked by the amount of 2012 cars on our roads.

It could mean one of two things, some people are still swimming in it or some people are still living beyond their means. Most likely a combination of both. Considering the amount of them I see on the road, I would say a large minority are continuing to play the role of a moneybags, which they really cannot afford. Would not be surprised if people have fallen behind on their mortgage to pay for their new toy. All we need is a few news stories to prove my point.

Chris_5339762

I'd say a minority were sensible. Greed took over everyone else, otherwise the self made property barons would have made a killing on one or two houses and then stopped. All of them kept going and then lost out in the bust.

Jaysoose

He makes good points regardless of the history of credit suisse, we are still engaged in this business as usual mentality in ireland and people are are compaining about only having cornflakes to eat...

The truth hurts.

waraf

Greed could be argued either way but from personal experience I can say that materialism and complacency (particularly in relation to politics) were rife amongst my circle of friends (myself included).
On the bright side I think that many of us have learned that money has only a tenuous link to happiness and there appears to have been a return to traditional values in finding pleasure in the simple things. Who needs an expensive sun holiday when a few quiet pints with friends in a cosy local can be just as relaxing and enjoyable.

Godge

Jaysoose wrote: »

He makes good points regardless of the history of credit suisse, we are still engaged in this business as usual mentality in ireland and people are are compaining about only having cornflakes to eat...

The truth hurts.

People are complaining about only having cornflakes to eat while maintaining Sky Sports subscriptions, running two cars in a household, running up €150 per month phone bills and still looking to go on holidays.

The Irish did lose the run of themselves from the top to the bottom.

Our social welfare system has an arrangement where you can continue to get paid while on holiday abroad. Isn't that astounding when there are many hard-working people in the UK and Germany that only can afford a holiday abroad every four or five years?

padma

The Irish, so called greedy gave the most money per head of capita to developing countries who experienced the worst natural and man made disasters over that period. Fact. greed is one thing, generosity is it's opposite and Ireland and it's people are very generous.

bullpost

Wow - I'd hate to go through a recession then if this is just a wake up call :eek:

mattser wrote: »

Spot on, Nody. While I accept that some are genuinely suffering, a lot of spoilt brats got their asses kicked, and don't know what hit them. This is more a wake up call than a recession.

Sleepy

Read the quote rather than focusing on the editor's attention grabbing headline:

With the benefit of hindsight of the kinds of illogic, materialism, greed and complacency that gripped Ireland in the 2000s, resist the 'madness' of crowds, question things that from an ethical or logical point of view don't seem right, and always try to have an independent view of what is going on around you

That's good advice that cites greed as one of the the elements that caused our current problems and it's a factor that can't be denied tbh.

Farmer Pudsey

The majority of ordinary people that are in trouble in Ireland are in the 25-40 age group. Those younger had not the opportunity to build up debt while most of those over 40 had been brought up in the eighties when times were tougher than the ninties. It is all very well for our friend from Credit Suisse giving us lectures about it when alot of multi-national retailers crowded into Ireland in the noughties.

The biggest issue with the noughties was the look over the fence brigade and that some people who should have known better did not shout stop. Politicians and bankers should have known better and bankers especially should not have followed the stampede into lendind money borrowed on the short term market. Blaming ordinary Joe Soap that paid over the top for a apartment or 3 bed semi or even upgrading to a proper family home is a bit rich by some posters. Not everyone is as wise as you and me. Not everyone is able to batten the hatches and cut costs like me. However as someone that was riased in the seventies I know what is necessary to survive but I do not expect other's to manage like me and I definatly do not have the attitude that ''look I new this was going to happen and I did not buy a house so why did you''.

This attitide makes me puke if this was a normal economy where we had proper debt resolution and bankrupty laws alot of this would be over now and the banks would have moved through the debt pile and ordinary Joe Soap could have picked himself up and got on with life again. But because we have not sorted out the personel debt issue we are still crawling along at the bottom of the cesspit.

fedor.2.

Godge wrote: »

A couple of people are complaining about only having cornflakes to eat while maintaining Sky Sports subscriptions, running two cars in a household, running up €150 per month phone bills and still looking to go on holidays.

Some Irish people did lose the run of themselves from the top to the bottom.

Our social welfare system has an arrangement where you can continue to get paid while on holiday abroad. Isn't that astounding when there are some hard-working people in the UK and Germany that only can afford a holiday abroad every four or five years?

I fixed that for ya

Sleepy

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Politicians and bankers should have known better and bankers especially should not have followed the stampede into lendind money borrowed on the short term market.

Many of those in the banks tried to shout stop but were ignored by the top brass who had never worked as retail bankers, coming instead from the likes of Deloitte, Arthur Andersons, Credit Suisse etc.

antoobrien

About time somebody started admitting the truth

Lantus

People hate the idea they were to blame in any way or should have 'personal' responsibility. Most want to blame germany and the eu for lending the money in the first place. Which to me seems a bit like blaming the drinks industry for giving you a hangover.

I dont think it was greed per se but rather a belief that as a nation we were 'untouchable' and had re-written the economic rules and therefore were somehow special. The process of using easy and cheap money to purchase whatever it was our heats desired was just a natural by product of that belief.

I often told people that it would come to an end and the boom was built on a shaky premise. What I got for my trouble was often a very hateful reply as if I had damaged the very integrity of the irish nation itself. Often very intelligent people would try to explain that either it would never end or something called a soft landing would magically appear. Something never seen in nature before. Of course if enough people repeated it it became truth.

As for credit suisse. The entire global monetary system is built on the premise that we compete for wealth and goods often at the detriment of others. After all if I want to make a successful business making something I often need to do it at the expense of another factory trying to do the same, potentially putting them out of a job or making them worse off. This is what we often call success. Remember that the next time we all tell our children the importance of being 'good'.

blackdog2

The vast majority of Irish people didn't participate in the madness that was the period from 2002-2009 (we could go further back, for as long as the EU has been giving subsidies, but that would be unfair to those who were productive in our economy, and technological advances).

I would wager that the premise upon which modern finance is built (unlimited growth based on resource extraction, and the hypothecation of said resources) is far more relevant, and worrisome to bankers, than 15% unemployment. I would love to see how much gold is actually held by Credit Suisse, and would also love to see the value of derivatives they hold which would be affected by an Irish default.

Have they bought government bonds recently? Do they plan to do so in the near future? Were they advised to buy recently? How are their own investments doing?

tara73

padma wrote: »

The Irish, so called greedy gave the most money per head of capita to developing countries who experienced the worst natural and man made disasters over that period. Fact. greed is one thing, generosity is it's opposite and Ireland and it's people are very generous.

this is actually true. thanks for reminding (honestly). and there are many other positive facts about the irish.

Godge

blackdog2 wrote: »

The vast majority of Irish people didn't participate in the madness that was the period from 2002-2009 (we could go further back, for as long as the EU has been giving subsidies, but that would be unfair to those who were productive in our economy, and technological advances).

Yes they did, whether they went out more, whether they bought a house in Spain or Bulgaria, whether they bought an apartment in Dublin, whether they built an extension, whether they went on holiday while on the dole, whether they bought a new car, whether they went to the pub five nights a week, whether they bought a big TV or a new laptop, whether they went to England to watch ManChelseaPool, whether they had that weekend away in the nice hotel that Sean built, 90%+ of people participated to a greater or lesser extent in the madness, it was impossible to avoid.

The lucky ones are those that only spent what they had or saved a bit, they didn't take on debt, they might have the 07 BMW bought new with cash but luckily no car loan. You know we were selling more luxury cars than Germany at the height of the boom, a country 20 times our size!!! The number of people who pretend they didn't benefit from the boom or partake in the madness is amazing.

There were a small number who didn't partake in the madness, they include the homeless and those who are buying houses on the cheap for cash at auctions, everyone else did, you are kidding yourself if you say otherwise.

It still goes on, look at the figures today for mobile phones, about 20% more phones than there are people, if you exclude the very young (under 6) and the very old who don't have one, about 30% of Irish people have two phones,

Duggys Housemate

The whole "we were all greedy" thing is nonsense.

1) It wasn't in the financial interest of people who bought houses in the boom to have to pay more. Paying more was foolishness, or being unlucky, not greed.
2) Buy to let landlords, remortagers, developers, bankers were greedy however.
3) Retail mortgages have only begun to not perform. What collapsed the banks were loans to developers. Banks and developers, not "we the people"

Full disclosure: I stayed in the rental sector as I saw the bubble.

Duggys Housemate

Godge wrote: »

Yes they did, whether they went out more, whether they bought a house in Spain or Bulgaria, whether they bought an apartment in Dublin, whether they built an extension, whether they went on holiday while on the dole, whether they bought a new car, whether they went to the pub five nights a week, whether they bought a big TV or a new laptop, whether they went to England to watch ManChelseaPool, whether they had that weekend away in the nice hotel that Sean built, 90%+ of people participated to a greater or lesser extent in the madness, it was impossible to avoid.

The lucky ones are those that only spent what they had or saved a bit, they didn't take on debt, they might have the 07 BMW bought new with cash but luckily no car loan. You know we were selling more luxury cars than Germany at the height of the boom, a country 20 times our size!!! The number of people who pretend they didn't benefit from the boom or partake in the madness is amazing.

There were a small number who didn't partake in the madness, they include the homeless and those who are buying houses on the cheap for cash at auctions, everyone else did, you are kidding yourself if you say otherwise.

It still goes on, look at the figures today for mobile phones, about 20% more phones than there are people, if you exclude the very young (under 6) and the very old who don't have one, about 30% of Irish people have two phones,

Thats a load of tosh. None of this crashed the banks - Anglo crashed because of merchant loans, not retail loans. And who "bought for cheap" at auctions? In the boom the price at auctions skyrocketed. You have here, just excused the rich ( the people who could buy for cash during the boom). In fact the cash rich invested and leveraged. And many are now bankrupt.

As for mobile phones, thats hardly going to break the bank. People earned more in the boom, and therefore spent more, that was not the cause of the reversal. The cause was the greed of the top 1%. That and that alone.

blackdog2

Godge wrote: »

Yes they did, whether they went out more, whether they bought a house in Spain or Bulgaria, whether they bought an apartment in Dublin, whether they built an extension, whether they went on holiday while on the dole, whether they bought a new car, whether they went to the pub five nights a week, whether they bought a big TV or a new laptop, whether they went to England to watch ManChelseaPool, whether they had that weekend away in the nice hotel that Sean built, 90%+ of people participated to a greater or lesser extent in the madness, it was impossible to avoid.

The lucky ones are those that only spent what they had or saved a bit, they didn't take on debt, they might have the 07 BMW bought new with cash but luckily no car loan. You know we were selling more luxury cars than Germany at the height of the boom, a country 20 times our size!!! The number of people who pretend they didn't benefit from the boom or partake in the madness is amazing.

There were a small number who didn't partake in the madness, they include the homeless and those who are buying houses on the cheap for cash at auctions, everyone else did, you are kidding yourself if you say otherwise.

It still goes on, look at the figures today for mobile phones, about 20% more phones than there are people, if you exclude the very young (under 6) and the very old who don't have one, about 30% of Irish people have two phones,

No, I am not kidding myself. The people who created these problems are in the minority. Plenty of people did actually earn enough to live a comfortable life. Not all of those who did live well leveraged to the hilt. It is a convenient excuse for those who did.

Head The Wall

blackdog2 wrote: »

The vast majority of Irish people didn't participate in the madness that was the period from 2002-2009 (we could go further back, for as long as the EU has been giving subsidies, but that would be unfair to those who were productive in our economy, and technological advances).

I would wager that the premise upon which modern finance is built (unlimited growth based on resource extraction, and the hypothecation of said resources) is far more relevant, and worrisome to bankers, than 15% unemployment. I would love to see how much gold is actually held by Credit Suisse, and would also love to see the value of derivatives they hold which would be affected by an Irish default.

Have they bought government bonds recently? Do they plan to do so in the near future? Were they advised to buy recently? How are their own investments doing?

How many houses were built and bought between 2002 and 2009? It's ridiculous to claim that the majority of people didn't participate in it. I left Ireland in 2003 and returned late 2006, it had become a very different place in 3.5 years.

Also people dragging up insinuations about Credit Suisse just make it look like they are trying to deflect the blame. Ireland needs to accept responsibility for what it became.

Duggys Housemate

Head The Wall wrote: »

How many houses were built and bought between 2002 and 2009? It's ridiculous to claim that the majority of people didn't participate in it. I left Ireland in 2003 and returned late 2006, it had become a very different place in 3.5 years.

Also people dragging up insinuations about Credit Suisse just make it look like they are trying to deflect the blame. Ireland needs to accept responsibility for what it became.

Buying an overpriced house isn't greed, if you have no other option. It is, perhaps, foolish. Selling hundreds of houses is greed.

Head The Wall

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Buying an overpriced house isn't greed, if you have no other option. It is, perhaps, foolish. Selling hundreds of houses is greed.

What do you call buying something that is overpriced? If somebody pays for something it is not overpriced, you can only call something overpriced if you walk away from it as it is too expensive. If all these properties were overpriced no one would have bought them.

If you buy something you want but can't really afford then that is greed

antoobrien

blackdog2 wrote: »

The vast majority of Irish people didn't participate in the madness that was the period from 2002-2009

Borrowings by households 2003-Present
Category | March 2003 | Peak | % increase| Peak date
Total Mortgage Borrowings | €45.5bn | €125.1bn | 274% | March 2008
Primary Dwellings | €37.7 | €90.2 | 239% | March 2008
By to let | €7.2bn | €33.4bn | 463% | March 2008
Holiday & 2nd home | €0.6bn | €1.5bn | 250% | June 2008
Personal borrowings | €12bn | €29bn | 241% | March 2009


It's about time we stopped trying to blame somebody else, we did it to ourselves.

Sources:
http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/cmab/Documents/ie_Table_A.18_Credit_Advanced_to_and_Deposits_from_Irish_Private_Households.xls
http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/cmab/Documents/ie_Table_A.18.1_Credit_Advanced_to_Irish_Resident_Private_Households_for_House_Purchase.xls

Duggys Housemate

Head The Wall wrote: »

What do you call buying something that is overpriced? If somebody pays for something it is not overpriced, you can only call something overpriced if you walk away from it as it is too expensive. If all these properties were overpriced no one would have bought them.

If you buy something you want but can't really afford then that is greed

I call buying something overpriced stupid. In no dictionary would greed be

buying something overpriced.

You are ignoring the sellers.

blackdog2

Head The Wall wrote: »

How many houses were built and bought between 2002 and 2009? It's ridiculous to claim that the majority of people didn't participate in it. I left Ireland in 2003 and returned late 2006, it had become a very different place in 3.5 years.

Also people dragging up insinuations about Credit Suisse just make it look like they are trying to deflect the blame. Ireland needs to accept responsibility for what it became.

How many are still being paid for? As I said, the majority of those who did buy, are still paying their mortgages.

Credit Suisse are not a neutral party, and never will be when it comes to this type of topic. From the horse's mouth:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/ecb-compromise-cheat-sheet

Also, what about those who would have bought anyway? Those who built the houses weren't you and I (Unless it was you, in which case I have a few choice words for you)

Duggys Housemate

antoobrien wrote: »

Borrowings by households 2003-Present
Category | March 2003 | Peak | % increase| Peak date
Primary Dwellings| €45.5bn | €125.1bn | 274% | March 2008
By to let | €7.2bn | €33.4bn | 463% | March 2008
Holiday & 2nd home | €0.6bn | €1.5bn | 250% | June 2008
Personal borrowings | €12bn | €29bn | 241% | March 2009


It's about time we stopped trying to blame somebody else, we did it to ourselves.

Sources:
http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/cmab/Documents/ie_Table_A.18_Credit_Advanced_to_and_Deposits_from_Irish_Private_Households.xls
http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/cmab/Documents/ie_Table_A.18.1_Credit_Advanced_to_Irish_Resident_Private_Households_for_House_Purchase.xls

Nobody is doubting buy to letters are greedy ( with the exception of people who move in together to and then can rent one out). Its designed to make money from other people. The last figure is mostly re-mortagers. Lots of older people re-mortaged. Also greedy. I said all this. Primary dwellings - thats not greed.

People who felt they had to buy to get on the ladder. Foolish. Most importantly all these loans are in general being paid back, it is was the loans of the corrupt rich to their developer friends which broke the banks.

sean200

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I'd say a minority were sensible. Greed took over everyone else, otherwise the self made property barons would have made a killing on one or two houses and then stopped. All of them kept going and then lost out in the bust.

But sure there is still Greed. We are still being screwed
Take a look at the so called professionals like the GP, dentist, and solicitor
They are still screwing us for greed

blackdog2

antoobrien wrote: »

Borrowings by households 2003-Present
Category | March 2003 | Peak | % increase| Peak date
Primary Dwellings| €45.5bn | €125.1bn | 274% | March 2008
By to let | €7.2bn | €33.4bn | 463% | March 2008
Holiday & 2nd home | €0.6bn | €1.5bn | 250% | June 2008
Personal borrowings | €12bn | €29bn | 241% | March 2009


It's about time we stopped trying to blame somebody else, we did it to ourselves.

Sources:
http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/cmab/Documents/ie_Table_A.18_Credit_Advanced_to_and_Deposits_from_Irish_Private_Households.xls
http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/cmab/Documents/ie_Table_A.18.1_Credit_Advanced_to_Irish_Resident_Private_Households_for_House_Purchase.xls

Show me where the majority of those loans are not being repaid, and that it is over 50% of borrowers who aren't repaying. It is a strawman argument at best, that borrowing increased and thus we are greedy.

deanhughes

It's like a roller coaster we all had a great ride during but left feeling a little sick afterwards

Greed is good

creedp

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Nobody is doubting buy to letters are greedy ( with the exception of people who move in together to and then can rent one out). Its designed to make money from other people. The last figure is mostly re-mortagers. Lots of older people re-mortaged. Also greedy. I said all this. Primary dwellings - thats not greed.

People who felt they had to buy to get on the ladder. Foolish. Most importantly all these loans are in general being paid back, it is was the loans of the corrupt rich to their developer friends which broke the banks.

So persons who engage in buying to let domestic houses are greedy .. does that mean buying to let commerical property is also greedy. Buying to let is designed to make money from other people?? So all business is greed? For petes sake get a bit of perspective! If someone borrows to invest in a business they are considered businesspeople. Not all businesses suceed - so are all failed businesspeople greedy? I don't fully get the vitriol spewed against house owners with mortgages, be they owner occupiers or buy to lets. Just because many people made a mess of things doesn't mean everybody was greedy! It seems to me that for many people anyone who does things differently is automatically greedy.

antoobrien

blackdog2 wrote: »

Show me where the majority of those loans are not being repaid, and that it is over 50% of borrowers who aren't repaying. It is a strawman argument at best, that borrowing increased and thus we are greedy.

There's a strawman here all right and blackdog2 is his name.

I never said anything about the level of repayments, arrears or affordability of mortgages. I also never used the word greedy.

The figures I supplied the are figures for borrowings from Irish households i.e. the general public. Not banks, businesses, clubs, charities, or the government.

The figures undermine the notion that the general population didn't get caught up in the boom - we did. We borrowed money for better cars, bathrooms, computers, bodies (that is very subjective though) - you name it we got loans for it or put it on the card. Did we care if it couldn't be repaid - largely it seems no - most of the people I know with personal credit cards have gotten rid of them to keep them out of trouble.

But since you bring it up, as of June there are 761,533 residential mortgages (loan value at 111.94bn). To put that in context, there is a mortgage for every 2 dwellings that the household levy can be charged on. Of those 128,416 (17%) are in arrears (loan value approx 24bn - 21.5%). There have been 84,941 mortgages restructured, with 40,221 of those not in arrears - meaning that there are at least 44,720 that are seriously in arrears (i.e. have had their mortgages restructured and fell further into arrears).

The historical figures are not available (arrears figures are only available from 2011), however given the sheer values of the "newer" mortgages, the age and employment profile of those who borrowed, it's easy enough to figure out that it's the people that borrowed in the past 10 years that are in most trouble.


Source - http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/mortgagearrears/Documents/2012q2_ie_mortgage_arrears_statistics.pdf

Drumpot

Ah - Greed , the quintisential argument thrown at people who are struggling now with debts they can barely afford, irrespective of their circumstances . .

I dont believe I was greedy in thinking that I had to buy a house (outside of my county and place of work) to bring up a family and wasnt as propthetic as the PC warriors very prudent boardies that love nothing better then to gloat about their greatness (in not buying) and condemning us "greedy"individuals that had the gaul to want to own our own house.

My own definition of greed is when a person wants more then they require in the environment they grow up in. In Ireland, food, clothing and shelter are quite basic essentials. I dont consider wanting to own your own house as "greedy".

Capitalism by its very nature is all about greed. Greed is good as Mr Gecko put it . . Capitalism encourages the increase of wealth to individuals and as we consistantly see, its at the expense of the majority. I am in better living standards then a king of the 17th century (warmth, electricity etc), but I wouldnt class it as digs fit for a kind. The point being, the capitalist defenders argue that its proportionatley made everybody better off, when in truth its made specific indivuals grossly rich and given the rest of us plebs some scraps to cling to . .

Sorry . . Rant over, back to the point . .

A bank taking a moral stance and looking down at an Irishperson for the state of our economy .. Its like a paedophile saying that the kids had it coming to them . .

Bits_n_Bobs

State borrowing remains a multiple of personal borrowing. If Ireland had a reasonable level of state borrowing and then decided a reasonable and equitable write down of personal and unsustainable personal borrowings and then ended up with a bankrupt state as a result of this your thesis that 'the greedy paddies' buggered the country would hold some water.

What has actually happened is that
- the state has consistently overspent/undertaxed for the last 5 years
- the state bailed out the banks. In doing so it made a relatively small provision for greedy Irish people that borrowed unsustainable amounts, a tiny proportion of which has been used by the banks for this purpose. The vast majority of the monies poured into the banks have not gone towards writing down personal 'ordinary joe' debt.

Scortho

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Buying an overpriced house isn't greed, if you have no other option. It is, perhaps, foolish. Selling hundreds of houses is greed.

I have no problem with people buying an overpriced house!
What I do have a problem with is when they expect you to compensate them for paying over the odds on said house.

Just look through threads on negative equity! Most mention that they had planned to sell it on for a profit two or three years later! A lot of Irish people thought they could get rich buying and selling houses to each other!

Selling hundreds of houses at prices people are willing to pay at the time isn't greed.

Farmer Pudsey

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Nobody is doubting buy to letters are greedy ( with the exception of people who move in together to and then can rent one out). Its designed to make money from other people. The last figure is mostly re-mortagers. Lots of older people re-mortaged. Also greedy. I said all this. Primary dwellings - thats not greed.

People who felt they had to buy to get on the ladder. Foolish. Most importantly all these loans are in general being paid back, it is was the loans of the corrupt rich to their developer friends which broke the banks.

This is a bit rich as I said in my orginal some comments make me Puke, alot of buy to lets are self employed people trying to put in place a pension for there old age not all but a lot. Yes some super wealthy were involved in ponzi type buying but a lot are people trying to provide for there old age.
The biggest issue with the boom was that the old local banker was taken out of the system and the fly by night operator got money he should not have got. Now when i orginally started working I quicklt knew two things one who you could and could not lend a fiver to and two the fellow that did not pay it back would never pay it back so there was no point chasing him.

sean200 wrote: »

But sure there is still Greed. We are still being screwed
Take a look at the so called professionals like the GP, dentist, and solicitor
They are still screwing us for greed

And you could add very highly paid public servants, Politicians( retired one especially) big companies the list is endless

blackdog2 wrote: »

Show me where the majority of those loans are not being repaid, and that it is over 50% of borrowers who aren't repaying. It is a strawman argument at best, that borrowing increased and thus we are greedy.

yes borrowing increased but the reality is that every second time you opened a letter from a bank it was telling you had been approved for a 20K loan and the money was there for you. Like I said in my earlier post some people can manage debt some cannot.

antoobrien wrote: »

There's a strawman here all right and blackdog2 is his name.

I never said anything about the level of repayments, arrears or affordability of mortgages. I also never used the word greedy.

The figures I supplied the are figures for borrowings from Irish households i.e. the general public. Not banks, businesses, clubs, charities, or the government.

The figures undermine the notion that the general population didn't get caught up in the boom - we did. We borrowed money for better cars, bathrooms, computers, bodies (that is very subjective though) - you name it we got loans for it or put it on the card. Did we care if it couldn't be repaid - largely it seems no - most of the people I know with personal credit cards have gotten rid of them to keep them out of trouble.

But since you bring it up, as of June there are 761,533 residential mortgages (loan value at 111.94bn). To put that in context, there is a mortgage for every 2 dwellings that the household levy can be charged on. Of those 128,416 (17%) are in arrears (loan value approx 24bn - 21.5%). There have been 84,941 mortgages restructured, with 40,221 of those not in arrears - meaning that there are at least 44,720 that are seriously in arrears (i.e. have had their mortgages restructured and fell further into arrears).

The historical figures are not available (arrears figures are only available from 2011), however given the sheer values of the "newer" mortgages, the age and employment profile of those who borrowed, it's easy enough to figure out that it's the people that borrowed in the past 10 years that are in most trouble.

That is taken as a given the reality is that any loan is usually secure after 10 years also I for one saw the writing on the wall in 2002 when the government gave in to the developers on the 40% Capital gains tax on development land unused after 2 years. This ment that developers or investors could hoard land which is what happened just look at all the delapitated buildings in what were considered prime locations during the boom.

Scortho wrote: »

I have no problem with people buying an overpriced house!
What I do have a problem with is when they expect you to compensate them for paying over the odds on said house.

Just look through threads on negative equity! Most mention that they had planned to sell it on for a profit two or three years later! A lot of Irish people thought they could get rich buying and selling houses to each other!

Selling hundreds of houses at prices people are willing to pay at the time isn't greed.[/QUOTE]

The reality is that it was a minority there are still a load of people who bought houses during the boom and are managing away with them but the other reality is that because of our insolvency laws any one who has a debt issue after they sell the existing property will have that debt chase them for the rest of there lives.

I cannot understand the part I highlighted becaus if I read it as is you are saying that large builders/developers were not pushing up prices by hoarding.

Medu

He is spot on.

Take negative equity. Why are so many people complaining about been in it? It shouldn't matter if the house they bought is their home! Unless of course the house they bought was really an investment which they planned to live in for 5-10 years, see the price sky rocket, sell it on to someone else, and trade up.

Duggys Housemate

creedp wrote: »

So persons who engage in buying to let domestic houses are greedy .. does that mean buying to let commerical property is also greedy. Buying to let is designed to make money from other people?? So all business is greed? For petes sake get a bit of perspective! If someone borrows to invest in a business they are considered businesspeople. Not all businesses suceed - so are all failed businesspeople greedy? I don't fully get the vitriol spewed against house owners with mortgages, be they owner occupiers or buy to lets. Just because many people made a mess of things doesn't mean everybody was greedy! It seems to me that for many people anyone who does things differently is automatically greedy.

All business is greed. I may think that "greed is good" for all you know, in moderation I think it is. However there is no need for most people to become BTL landlords, thats a form of "greed" - earning more than you need, in all cases. A man with 20 houses is greedy, or ambitious. Or both.

I am arguing that normal people buying houses are not greedy as it happens, even if they anticipate selling at a profit long term - most people who buy a reasonable sized house will be there for life, if it is big enough for the family.

It is no more greedy to buy in the boom than to buy next year, or the year after - when the market bottoms - I hope to do that. One is foolish, both are equally greedy.

Take negative equity. Why are so many people complaining about been in it? It shouldn't matter if the house they bought is their home! Unless of course the house they bought was really an investment which they planned to live in for 5-10 years, see the price sky rocket, sell it on to someone else, and trade up.

I imagine most people either buy one house, for life, or move from an apartment to a house when they have kids. And thats it. People are complaining about negative equity because being in negative net worth makes you poorer than the homeless. Most people, unlike the banks, and bond holders, are not asking for forgiveness on the loans.

professore

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Buying an overpriced house isn't greed, if you have no other option. It is, perhaps, foolish. Selling hundreds of houses is greed.

Don't buy it?

Duggys Housemate

professore wrote: »

Don't buy it?

Is it greedy to stay in the rental sector? To prove house buyers were greedy, rather than foolish in the boom you have to prove that they acted differently.

Some people did

1) People who re-mortgaged, and who don't or can't in non-boom times.
2) People who became btl lanflords who wouldn't otherwise.
3) Developers who didnt, or couldnt get loans other than boom times, and who leveraged to the hundreds of millions.
4) banks who are pushy with their loans, and who hope to grow at 20% a year, in an unsustainable fashion - and less so, their shareholders.

Not joe schmo who buys a house. If thats not greedy in a bust, it isnt greedy in a boom. Joe schmo was the small fish on which the larger fish preyed.

antoobrien

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

People are complaining about negative equity because being in negative net worth makes you poorer than the homeless.

Bull and other choice words.

The only people I know that are complaining about negative equity are those that bought assets, not homes. I know plenty of people that are in negative equity, but they bought homes, not something to be sold on again in a few years if/when circumstances change (be it kids or the chance to make a quick buck), but don't go whining that they can't sell on - because they have no intention of doing so.

The negative equity whingers totally undermine the argument that people were buying homes - they were not, they were buying assets.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Most people, unlike the banks, and bond holders, are not asking for forgiveness on the loans.

ha?

Seriously, the ordinary punter not looking for debt forgiveness?:eek:

Not likely to get debt forgiveness, but definitely not "not looking" for it. (damn there's no smiley for shaking head).

partyguinness

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

"A class action lawsuit by holocaust survivors was started in 1996[7] and settled in 2000, when a $1.25 billion settlement was reached between survivors and several financial services companies, including Credit Suisse"

"In 1999 Japan's Financial Supervisory Agency temporarily suspended the financial-products division's license to operate in Japan for "window dressing" as part of a larger investigation. Credit Suisse was selling derivatives that are often used by companies to hide losses on corporate balance sheets, a practice that is not necessarily illegal, but must comply with complicated new regulations."

"In 2006 Credit Suisse acknowledged misconduct for helping Iran and other countries hide transactions from US authorities and paid a $536 million settlement. The settlement was reached after a broader year-long investigation by the government, intended to put financial pressure on foreign countries to give up their nuclear arms plans"

"Credit Suisse is one of the financial services firms being investigated by US authorities for bundling mortgage loans with securities during the US housing boom. The company is accused of selling more than $100 billion in securities for residential mortgage loans form 2004 to 2007, while misrepresenting the risk of the underlying mortgages."

"As part of a global crackdown on tax evasion, Credit Suisse faced separate investigations by US, Brazilian, and several European authorities. In April 2008, Brazilian police arrested 14 Credit Suisse employees and former employees as part of a two year "Operation Switzerland" investigation which started in 2006."

"n 2011 Credit Suisse, facing a U.S. Department of Justice probe, agreed to settle claims they aided clients evade U.S. taxes through secret accounts and other dealings to avoid a formal federal indictment. The agreement reports to include paying more than US$1 billion in fines and releasing details on U.S. account holders and related deals where the bank may have aided clients in evading U.S. taxes.[31] Credit Suisse also reached a deal with German authorities in which it paid €150 million to settle similar claims.[32] Lloyds Banking Group, Barclays, and several other banks were involved with similar information stripping controversies around the same time as Credit Suisse."

(Source - Wikipedia)

Clearly these people know a lot about greed, so can probably recognise it when they see it. As a citizen of the disgraceful greedy Irish population I will be wearing sackcloth and ashes, while praying to financial gods such as Mr. Sullivan for forgiveness. REPENT YE SINNERS!!!

Would like to nominate for "Post of the Day"....

Duggys Housemate

antoobrien wrote: »

Bull and other choice words.

The only people I know that are complaining about negative equity are those that bought assets, not homes. I know plenty of people that are in negative equity, but they bought homes, not something to be sold on again in a few years if/when circumstances change (be it kids or the chance to make a quick buck), but don't go whining that they can't sell on - because they have no intention of doing so.

The negative equity whingers totally undermine the argument that people were buying homes - they were not, they were buying assets.



ha?

Seriously, the ordinary punter not looking for debt forgiveness?:eek:

Not likely to get debt forgiveness, but definitely not "not looking" for it. (damn there's no smiley for shaking head).

There is no organized campaign, or protests on the street for debt forgiveness. People are doing it person by person.

partyguinness

I worked as a property lawyer in Ireland from 2002-2010. I was very well placed to see some crazy things people did with money and I do look back on that period every know and then.I genuinely would not use the word greed. The amount of credit being thrown at people was obscene (a lot from German and UK banks but that is a different debate).There was this culture that you had to buy property and the more the better. It was like a drug/craze and people lost the run of themselves. But having said that, they trusted the banks and politicians to do their jobs properly. Hell, even I bought BOI and Anglo shares thinkiing they must know what they are doing...!!Yes, there was an element of greed but it was very much a case of making hay while the sun shines. I can recall getting an unsolicited text message from MBNA offering me £13,500.00 credit limit and all I had to do was text back "Yes". I was 26 and on £40k. I accepted but a few weeks later dropped the limit back down to £8,500.00 as it was nuts. Imagine a 26 year old running around with a credit card and a £13.5k limit. But that was the type of stuff going on. No wonder MBNA got the in difficulty.I remember a young couple my age coming in to see me and they had just bought 4 house off the plan....they were married with 2 small kids. I was earning more money and single (no property) and I could not understand it...I dread to think how they are now.We all have stories like this.

antoobrien

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

There is no organized campaign, or protests on the street for debt forgiveness

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=debt+forgiveness+campaings+ireland

Cian92

antoobrien wrote: »

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=debt+forgiveness+campaings+ireland

I don't understand why people argue for debt forgiveness. It will be us the tax payer who has to pick up the tab for debt forgiveness essentially. People took out loans and mortgages the terms and conditions were there they knew exactly what they were getting into. Now it is there obligation to continue making repayments.

If they get debt forgiveness, the banks will just make larger losses and require more government help.

The banks are very good here when it comes to people having difficulty repaying their mortgages, repossession rates are very low in Ireland in comparison to the UK or the USA.

R P McMurphy

Cian92 wrote: »

I don't understand why people argue for debt forgiveness. It will be us the tax payer who has to pick up the tab for debt forgiveness essentially. People took out loans and mortgages the terms and conditions were there they knew exactly what they were getting into. Now it is there obligation to continue making repayments.

If they get debt forgiveness, the banks will just make larger losses and require more government help.

The banks are very good here when it comes to people having difficulty repaying their mortgages, repossession rates are very low in Ireland in comparison to the UK or the USA.

They are not repossessing in large numbers as this would create a whole host of new problems for them. Give it time