Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Debt Forgiveness
Options
Comments
-
If someone made the big decision to hand over their house to the bank, then I'd be in favour of that being deemed to be repayment of their mortgage in full (only on the basis that all their scheduled payments, including interest, are completely up to date at the time they hand over the keys).
The bank then would have the choice of putting the house up for sale, having an auction or renting it out.
Obviously there'd be lots of terms and conditions to work out, but it might offer a reasonably fair way out for a lot of people, without unjustly enriching any of those who are tactically falling behind on their loan repayments in the hope of a free windfall.0 -
The Rooster wrote: »If someone made the big decision to hand over their house to the bank, then I'd be in favour of that being deemed to be repayment of their mortgage in full (only on the basis that all their scheduled payments, including interest, are completely up to date at the time they hand over the keys).
The bank then would have the choice of putting the house up for sale, having an auction or renting it out.
Not a bad idea at all. The banks should certainly take some pain when they lent amounts of money for mortgages which were 10 or 20 times the borrowers annual income...and there were a few ( probably not many ) instances like that.0 -
The Rooster wrote: »If someone made the big decision to hand over their house to the bank, then I'd be in favour of that being deemed to be repayment of their mortgage in full (only on the basis that all their scheduled payments, including interest, are completely up to date at the time they hand over the keys).
The bank then would have the choice of putting the house up for sale, having an auction or renting it out.
Obviously there'd be lots of terms and conditions to work out, but it might offer a reasonably fair way out for a lot of people, without unjustly enriching any of those who are tactically falling behind on their loan repayments in the hope of a free windfall.
So the bank get dumped with the security that's worth a fraction of the original loan and the borrower gets away scot-free?
I don't think you've thought this through...
Mary
The bank wouldn't be taking SOME of the pain. They'd be taking ALL of it.0 -
Not sure if serious or notThe Rooster wrote: »If someone made the big decision to hand over their house to the bank, then I'd be in favour of that being deemed to be repayment of their mortgage in full (only on the basis that all their scheduled payments, including interest, are completely up to date at the time they hand over the keys).0 -
The Rooster wrote: »If someone made the big decision to hand over their house to the bank, then I'd be in favour of that being deemed to be repayment of their mortgage in full (only on the basis that all their scheduled payments, including interest, are completely up to date at the time they hand over the keys).
The bank then would have the choice of putting the house up for sale, having an auction or renting it out.
Obviously there'd be lots of terms and conditions to work out, but it might offer a reasonably fair way out for a lot of people, without unjustly enriching any of those who are tactically falling behind on their loan repayments in the hope of a free windfall.
And leave me as taxpayer to foot the bill? I would much prefer to see my tax money going to pay nurses or provide for the homeless than letting people off who in some cases could otherwise pay their bills.
Anyone in negative equity would be mad not to avail of this.0 -
Advertisement
-
not in the case of people who bought in the boom and who had kept up repayments since - they would be losing all of that money.The bank wouldn't be taking SOME of the pain. They'd be taking ALL of it.
There are instances of banks lending money during the boom where they should not have done so eg mortgages over 100% of the property value, and where the mortgage was 10 or 20 times the borrowers annual income.
The bank needs to feel some pain, otherwise the banks will make the same mistakes again....and mess up the economy on the rest of us again.0 -
Drumswans new property speculation business
1. Buy mates property for 4 times its worth
2. Hand back the keys to get out of paying the monies owed
3. Split profit with mate
4. Rinse and repeat
In fact if I just do this with all the properties in Ireland Ill have single handedly solved the financial crisis!0 -
stop right there. No bank will lend property for 4 times its worth. If it does, it deserves to get burnt and the manager(s) concerned fired.Drumswans new property speculation business
1. Buy mates property for 4 times its worth
In other countries banks look at the valuations of property. They have a responsibility to do so here to. Because the banks behaved irresponsibly means that we have to punish banks in order for it not to happen again. Bank managers who lent more that properties were worth should have serious questions to answer. eg if there was an estate of houses and other houses there sell for 200k each, do you think a bank should advance 800k to someone to borrow one there ? Get real.0 -
The borrower hasn't exactly gotten off scot-free; to begin with whatever payments or deposit already paid into the house are lost. Additionally, their credit rating would be shot and would take years to recover, if ever.So the bank get dumped with the security that's worth a fraction of the original loan and the borrower gets away scot-free?
Meanwhile the bank does not actually need to lose any money unless it sells. It can rent it out (this is done via management companies by banks in some countries) - even rent to the original owners. And then it can wait until the price climbs up again.
As a very simple example, say someone puts down a 20% deposit on a €500k home and gets a mortgage for the rest. They pay the mortgage for a few years, to the tune of €25k. Market collapse and the house is now worth 200k.
The owner loses the home and with it €125k already invested. The bank has paid €400k, of which €275k is outstanding - effectively what they've paid for the house. To break even, the bank needs only wait until the price climbs back up to that - an increase of only a further €75k. Tax payer doesn't actually need to pay anything.
Certainly it will decrease margins for the banks, rather than an actual loss, but in fairness while many people took irresponsible mortgages out, they couldn't have were it not for the banks that gave them - so I don't have any ethical objections there.
What I do object to is where I hear suggested how debts should be 'forgiven' and the owner should keep the house - that is scot-free and a total abdication on the part of those who gambled during the bubble.0 -
lol, yeah that could NEVER happenmaryishere wrote: »stop right there. No bank will lend property for 4 times its worth. If it does, it deserves to get burnt and the manager(s) concerned fired.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »The borrower hasn't exactly gotten off scot-free; to begin with whatever payments or deposit already paid into the house are lost. Additionally, their credit rating would be shot and would take years to recover, if ever.
Meanwhile the bank does not actually need to lose any money unless it sells. It can rent it out (this is done via management companies by banks in some countries) - even rent to the original owners. And then it can wait until the price climbs up again.
As a very simple example, say someone puts down a 20% deposit on a €500k home and gets a mortgage for the rest. They pay the mortgage for a few years, to the tune of €25k. Market collapse and the house is now worth 200k.
The owner loses the home and with it €125k already invested. The bank has paid €400k, of which €275k is outstanding - effectively what they've paid for the house. To break even, the bank needs only wait until the price climbs back up to that - an increase of only a further €75k. Tax payer doesn't actually need to pay anything.
Certainly it will decrease margins for the banks, rather than an actual loss, but in fairness while many people took irresponsible mortgages out, they couldn't have were it not for the banks that gave them - so I don't have any ethical objections there.
What I do object to is where I hear suggested how debts should be 'forgiven' and the owner should keep the house - that is scot-free and a total abdication on the part of those who gambled during the bubble.
Your numbers are wrong.
Mortgage is 400k
25k paid off the mortgage.
Outstanding mortgage is 375k
House is now worth 200k
Maybe 30-40 years to get back up to 375k if house is in rural location.
Owner is losing 125k, taxpayer is losing 175k.0 -
On the deposit, you're correct and I was incorrect.Your numbers are wrong.
If I remember correctly, house prices, while depressed for much of the eighties have never been so depressed overall that it would take 30 or 40 years to increase by such levels.Maybe 30-40 years to get back up to 375k if house is in rural location.
Taxpayer is losing nothing, unless it buys that equity from the bank. In which case the tax payer can still earn rental income and can afford to wait for the price to climb up again.Owner is losing 125k, taxpayer is losing 175k.0 -
So? They signed a contract with the bank to borrow money and the bank kept up their end so why should the borrower be allowed to wriggle out of that contract when they still have the ability to pay.The Corinthian wrote: »The borrower hasn't exactly gotten off scot-free; to begin with whatever payments or deposit already paid into the house are lost. Additionally, their credit rating would be shot and would take years to recover, if ever.
Also, the payments and deposit are not "lost". They got shelter and a home, just like renters do when they "lose" their rental payments.
You are aware that the banks themselves have to pay their own obligations?Meanwhile the bank does not actually need to lose any money unless it sells. It can rent it out (this is done via management companies by banks in some countries) - even rent to the original owners. And then it can wait until the price climbs up again.
And right now, they are losing money hand over fist. They need capital, not bricks & mortar.
Take a look at Japan and let us know how the waiting game has played out for them and while you're at it, could you let us know how the banks are supposed to roll over their loans while they take in "rent" that's lower than the mortgage repayments that are required for them to be able to refinance?As a very simple example, say someone puts down a 20% deposit on a €500k home and gets a mortgage for the rest. They pay the mortgage for a few years, to the tune of €25k. Market collapse and the house is now worth 200k.
The owner loses the home and with it €125k already invested. The bank has paid €400k, of which €275k is outstanding - effectively what they've paid for the house. To break even, the bank needs only wait until the price climbs back up to that - an increase of only a further €75k. Tax payer doesn't actually need to pay anything.
Right now, the banks have negative margins. AIB reported €3.6 billion losses back in March.Certainly it will decrease margins for the banks, rather than an actual loss, but in fairness while many people took irresponsible mortgages out, they couldn't have were it not for the banks that gave them - so I don't have any ethical objections there.
Here is what needs to happen:What I do object to is where I hear suggested how debts should be 'forgiven' and the owner should keep the house - that is scot-free and a total abdication on the part of those who gambled during the bubble.
1. People who can pay, should be made to pay up. If that means losing a foreign holiday or two, so be it. If they really won't pay then, treat them as you would any recalitrant creditor and hang them out to dry in the courts. If they really really don't like the idea of paying for the full 35 years, then sell the house and pay off the smaller balance separately.
2. People who cannot pay should go through the PIP process. They lose their house (or houses in the case of our insolvent BTL's). They then live within the spending guidelines for the assigned period and are discharged without their debt.
Less than 8% of all households are in arrears. There is absolutely no reason why the other 92% of households should be paying for that 8% to have free or subsidised accommodation.0 -
Correct. They are also paying bonuses and salaries which are reputed up to 800k a year. They had at least a moral obligation to run their businesses properly and prudently, so safeguard their funds which included many pensioners savings in the form of bank shares, but they failed in that regard, as we all know.You are aware that the banks themselves have to pay their own obligations?
Correct. And the managers involved still have their big pensions and salaries. The banks are losing money on tracker mortgages for example even when the borrower is making repayments ....the bank is lending money much less than it itself is borrowing money at. If a shop manager bought 30 years worth of goods and sold them at less than cost he would face the chop : why not the bank manager concerned?And right now, they are losing money hand over fist.
If a bank lends money to someone who can never repay it - say its 20 times annual income, as sometimes (albeit not often ) was the case ....should not the bank concerned pay for its mistakes? If not the bank personnell concerned? The imprudent, sloppy bank is being bailed out now the same as well managed banks / the executives enjoy the same pay and perks / nobody has faced the chop.0 -
-
If they have the ability to pay, I don't think they should be allowed to wriggle out - such an option should really only be open to those who genuinely cannot pay. I'd also not let the 100% mortgage holders off so lightly either.So? They signed a contract with the bank to borrow money and the bank kept up their end so why should the borrower be allowed to wriggle out of that contract when they still have the ability to pay.
As per my previous example, they'd be down €125k - I think that were they renting, they might be getting a better deal, TBH.Also, the payments and deposit are not "lost". They got shelter and a home, just like renters do when they "lose" their rental payments.
What do you think rental income is? It may end up being less, especially after administration, than were they just collecting interest, but as I said the banks do share some of the responsibility in this mess.You are aware that the banks themselves have to pay their own obligations?
And right now, they are losing money hand over fist. They need capital, not bricks & mortar.
We're not Japan, so that's speculation. Even if prices didn't increase, losses would be minimized and as I said above, the banks do have to take their share of the hit.Take a look at Japan and let us know how the waiting game has played out for them and while you're at it, could you let us know how the banks are supposed to roll over their loans while they take in "rent" that's lower than the mortgage repayments that are required for them to be able to refinance?
Not quite as bad as all that if you actually read what those losses and their projections for 2014 were.Right now, the banks have negative margins. AIB reported €3.6 billion losses back in March.
Agreed.1. People who can pay, should be made to pay up. If that means losing a foreign holiday or two, so be it. If they really won't pay then, treat them as you would any recalitrant creditor and hang them out to dry in the courts. If they really really don't like the idea of paying for the full 35 years, then sell the house and pay off the smaller balance separately.
Well the only difference between what I've suggested and that is the PIP spending guidelines and, potentially who ultimately pays the difference. What I'm suggesting leaves the bank to take the hit (nationalization notwithstanding) and, AFAIK, via the PIP process it's tax payer who pays.2. People who cannot pay should go through the PIP process. They lose their house (or houses in the case of our insolvent BTL's). They then live within the spending guidelines for the assigned period and are discharged without their debt.
I agree, but don't think there is a need for the tax payer to ultimately pay.Less than 8% of all households are in arrears. There is absolutely no reason why the other 92% of households should be paying for that 8% to have free or subsidised accommodation.0 -
The Rooster wrote: »If someone made the big decision to hand over their house to the bank, then I'd be in favour of that being deemed to be repayment of their mortgage in full (only on the basis that all their scheduled payments, including interest, are completely up to date at the time they hand over the keys).
The bank then would have the choice of putting the house up for sale, having an auction or renting it out.
Obviously there'd be lots of terms and conditions to work out, but it might offer a reasonably fair way out for a lot of people, without unjustly enriching any of those who are tactically falling behind on their loan repayments in the hope of a free windfall.
Percent of mortgages in negative equity, 30th June 2012:
AIB: 55% (€41bn total mortgages)
BOI: 59% (€28bn total mortgages)
PTSB: 65% (€25bn total mortgages)
That's quite a big capital hole you'd instantly create in the banks. Guess who would have to fill this? Fair mightn't be the best word to describe such a scheme.0 -
Depends. To begin with let's presume 60% negative equity on average. This gives us:That's quite a big capital hole you'd instantly create in the banks. Guess who would have to fill this? Fair mightn't be the best word to describe such a scheme.
AIB: €24.6bn
BOI: €16.8bn
PTSB: €15.0bn
Now let's assume that a further 5% has been paid off the total amount:
AIB: €22.6bn
BOI: €15.4bn
PTSB: €12.8bn
While still large, it's nowhere as bad as before. Yet I'd go further and if we only cover those (apparently 8%) who cannot pay, as opposed to those who can, but don't want to:
AIB: €1.8bn
BOI: €1.2bn
PTSB: €1.0bn
Hardly the end of the world for the banks and they get to keep the properties to rent now and sell later, if they please.0 -
Percent of mortgages in negative equity, 30th June 2012:
AIB: 55% (€41bn total mortgages)
BOI: 59% (€28bn total mortgages)
PTSB: 65% (€25bn total mortgages)
That's quite a big capital hole you'd instantly create in the banks. Guess who would have to fill this? Fair mightn't be the best word to describe such a scheme.
But is a lot of that debt written off already (i.e. the difference between loan value and house value) - so in many cases the bank P&L has already been hit? In such cases the bank would therefore not be hit with extra losses.
The intention is that it wouldnt be an easy thing to do or something would do lightly. It would have to be some kind of a black mark against the borrower. While not as bad as a normal default, but for example if you've done a "hand back the keys default where otherwise all your scheduled payments are up to date - if you were to get a future mortgage you'd need to be putting up, say, 50% of the house value, in order to get a new mortgage.
I don't profess to being a banking expert, I'm not saying this is the answer, but perhaps a starting point to a solution. Thankfully I'm not in negative equity myself, but I can imagine that giving up your home would be a horrible thing to have to do, but might be better than the situation some people find themselves in - and the banks took on the risk in giving the loans, they got "expert valuers" to value the properties - some risks you win on, some you lose on.0 -
Percent of mortgages in negative equity, 30th June 2012:
AIB: 55% (€41bn total mortgages)
BOI: 59% (€28bn total mortgages)
PTSB: 65% (€25bn total mortgages)
That's quite a big capital hole you'd instantly create in the banks. Guess who would have to fill this? Fair mightn't be the best word to describe such a scheme.
How big do you think the hole would be?
If they tried to sell the property at once, then yes there'd be a massive hole in the balance sheets.
If however they used the model proposed by The Corinthian, it'd be a different story. The rental income would greatly reduce the losses.
The average mortgage is supposedly for about 300k. For arguments sakes I'll assume that an average of 20k in capital has been repaid, so the outstanding capital cost would be 280k. The average property price is now approx 170k, leaving an average 110k gap between market price and cost (approx 1/3).
In the case of a repossession/walk away and the bank sells at the market rate, there is a 1/3 loss, but only if the bank sells.
The alternative proposed by The Corinthian would have the banks rent out the properties in order to recoup some of this 1/3 loss. Take a 4 bed house in Galway City, the rent would be approx €800p.m. That give an annual rent of 9,600. That rental figure is important because it's about €100 less than the approximate cost of a €180k mortgage over 30 years (80% ltv deposit). All else being equal, the banks could make back their €110k hole over about 15 years (allowing for maintenance costs, occupancy etc) and sell the property then at market rates.
A of what will happen depends greatly on the legal situation (getting repossession sorted is a big stumbling block), but also what the banks have the stomach to do (will they repossess and become landlords) and what if anything they are willing to take in losses.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »
Now let's assume that a further 5% has been paid off the total amount:
AIB: €22.6bn
BOI: €15.4bn
PTSB: €12.8bn
While still large, it's nowhere as bad as before. Yet I'd go further and if we only cover those (apparently 8%) who cannot pay, as opposed to those who can, but don't want to:
AIB: €1.8bn
BOI: €1.2bn
PTSB: €1.0bn
Hardly the end of the world for the banks and they get to keep the properties to rent now and sell later, if they please.
So €22.6bn + €15.4bn + €12.8bn = €50.8bn is not as bad as before?
I'm not sure the relevance of the 8% or where this is coming from. 22% of owner-occupier mortgages are in arrears by value, and 18% by number of accounts. That's mortgages of €24.8bn in arrears. (Central Bank data)
About 70% of mortgages in arrears are also in negative equity - so €17bn.
Whatever way you look at it - if there is a general scheme to simply write-off negative equity or cases of arrears+negative equity, there will be a significant capital hole to be filled... by public money.0 -
The Rooster wrote: »But is a lot of that debt written off already (i.e. the difference between loan value and house value) - so in many cases the bank P&L has already been hit? In such cases the bank would therefore not be hit with extra losses.
That's the problem - the banks have not taken any hit for mortgages that are in negative equity. Once borrowers are up to date with their payments, the banks carry the full value of the mortgage on their books, i.e. they expect to get fully repaid. They have been recapitalised for the estimated amount of mortgages that will default (and only up to end-2013), mortgages in negative equity are irrelevant for capital purposes once they are being repaid. Once there is any kind of mass crystallisation of negative equity, the banks would be forced to take the capital hit up front that would greatly exceed their existing capital buffers.0 -
Last time I checked €50.8bn is not as bad as €94bn.So €22.6bn + €15.4bn + €12.8bn = €50.8bn is not as bad as before?
I took the figure from gaius c, for those who are unable to pay their mortgage. Please note that arrears does not imply you're unable to pay, only that you're not paying - lot of that about, from what I can see.I'm not sure the relevance of the 8% or where this is coming from. 22% of owner-occupier mortgages are in arrears by value, and 18% by number of accounts. That's mortgages of €24.8bn in arrears. (Central Bank data)
Anyhow, personally I would be against some insane amnesty for anyone who's in negative equity and would only consider those genuinely unable to pay. Don't mistake what I'm suggesting for a get out of jail card.
How much of the reported losses by the banks over the last few years have been accounting write-offs? That's not public money.Whatever way you look at it - if there is a general scheme to simply write-off negative equity or cases of arrears+negative equity, there will be a significant capital hole to be filled... by public money.
As an aside, I'd rather the banks took on the properties than the government for another reason; how long before some bright spark decides rather than make rental income from those properties they can be used to house an antisocial family?0 -
Mary
Why are you responding to points that I am not making?
Fact is that the following warnings were blared all over the radio and TV re mortgage products.WARNING: YOUR HOME IS AT RISK IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP PAYMENTS ON A MORTGAGE OR ANY OTHER LOAN SECURED ON IT.
If you chose to ignore them and buy a house for 10 times your income, that's your problem not mine.WARNING: If you do not meet the repayments on your loan, your account will go into arrears. This may affect your credit rating, which may limit your ability to access credit in the future.
Rooster
You're making a common error. "Writing down" is not the same as "writing off". One is an accounting exercise. The other is debt relief and it should only be applied to people who simply cannot repay their debt even after the security has been sold off.0 -
So €22.6bn + €15.4bn + €12.8bn = €50.8bn is not as bad as before?
I'm not sure the relevance of the 8% or where this is coming from. 22% of owner-occupier mortgages are in arrears by value, and 18% by number of accounts. That's mortgages of €24.8bn in arrears. (Central Bank data)
About 70% of mortgages in arrears are also in negative equity - so €17bn.
Whatever way you look at it - if there is a general scheme to simply write-off negative equity or cases of arrears+negative equity, there will be a significant capital hole to be filled... by public money.
About a third of households have no mortgage at all and there's approx 300k households renting. PPR households in arrears number a third of all the households renting and as you're probably aware, if you fall into arrears while renting, you get evicted. Why should one class of household be allowed to stay in houses (or keep their BTL's) on the cheap while their tenants pay full whack?0 -
antoobrien wrote: »How big do you think the hole would be?
If they tried to sell the property at once, then yes there'd be a massive hole in the balance sheets.
If however they used the model proposed by The Corinthian, it'd be a different story. The rental income would greatly reduce the losses.
The average mortgage is supposedly for about 300k. For arguments sakes I'll assume that an average of 20k in capital has been repaid, so the outstanding capital cost would be 280k. The average property price is now approx 170k, leaving an average 110k gap between market price and cost (approx 1/3).
In the case of a repossession/walk away and the bank sells at the market rate, there is a 1/3 loss, but only if the bank sells.
The alternative proposed by The Corinthian would have the banks rent out the properties in order to recoup some of this 1/3 loss. Take a 4 bed house in Galway City, the rent would be approx €800p.m. That give an annual rent of 9,600. That rental figure is important because it's about €100 less than the approximate cost of a €180k mortgage over 30 years (80% ltv deposit). All else being equal, the banks could make back their €110k hole over about 15 years (allowing for maintenance costs, occupancy etc) and sell the property then at market rates.
A of what will happen depends greatly on the legal situation (getting repossession sorted is a big stumbling block), but also what the banks have the stomach to do (will they repossess and become landlords) and what if anything they are willing to take in losses.
Quite a few assumptions in there! The average mortgage size is only €140k for example, not €300k. But averages don't matter anyway. There is huge correlation between size of mortgage, whether the mortgage is in arrears, whether the mortgage is in negative equity and other factors like year of origination. These aren't independent.
But the key in your example is that once the asset is transferred to the bank through a repossession/walk away, the bank must take an immediate write-down of capital, regardless of whether they sell, rent, future property prices, etc. €110k in your example. Once a mortgage is performing, there is no capital impact of the negative equity. If a write-off of negative equity scheme is introduced - the banks won't have sufficient capital. It simply comes down to capital rules.0 -
About a third of households have no mortgage at all and there's approx 300k households renting. PPR households in arrears number a third of all the households renting and as you're probably aware, if you fall into arrears while renting, you get evicted. Why should one class of household be allowed to stay in houses (or keep their BTL's) on the cheap while their tenants pay full whack?
I still don't get the relevance of 8% to what I was saying, but so be it. I didn't mention anything about renters, I was talking about the amount of negative equity in the system.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Well the only difference between what I've suggested and that is the PIP spending guidelines and, potentially who ultimately pays the difference. What I'm suggesting leaves the bank to take the hit (nationalization notwithstanding) and, AFAIK, via the PIP process it's tax payer who pays.
I don't mean to be rude by just zeroing in on one part of your post but I don't quite get what you mean here?
The way PIP works is:
1. Person applies.
2. Person approved.
3. House and any other valuable assets repossessed and sold.
4. Outstanding debt looked at. If it can be re-structured, fine. If not, then the debtor pays what they can, i.e. salary minus spending guidelines.
5. If they earn less than the spending guidelines (have you seen them? They are quite generous), then they are effectively off scot-free and will be discharged from PIP once the period is up.
Sure, they lose their home (or homes in the case of BTL's-I suspect we're going to see a lot more of this than people realise) but they also lose the debt and move on with life.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »How much of the reported losses by the banks over the last few years have been accounting write-offs? That's not public money.
If the banks require more capital because of some sort of negative equity write-off scheme, or escalating arrears, Basle III regulations, or any other scenario... it will be public money. (Where do you think it will come from?) Probably from the Irish state, or possibly from some ESM-type vehicle. The only exception is a small amount of private capital that BOI could raise (and probably will later in the year).0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement