Are people fooled by this.

Roger_007

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Essentially it's just populist, vote-seeking rhetoric from Doherty.

I can't seen even SF making it an actual policy that you should be allowed default on your mortgage if you've "better things" to be spending your money on.

Are people fooled by this? Some, no doubt. There does appear to be a constituency in the electorate who'll vote for people who tell them what they want to hear, no matter how unrealistic that may be.

That would be the majority of the electorate, judging by the number of cute hoors, del boys, (and girls), and champagne socialists we manage to elect.

The most important thing you have to do to get elected in this country is to promise that you can create utopia for no cost whatsoever to Sean Citizen. You must never explain where the money is to come from.

If you get into a position of power and things inevitably turn out not as well as you promised, you lay the blame, (in no particular order), on one or more of the following:
The EU,
The bankers,
The Troika,
The IMF
The Germans.

(The British used to be the favourite whipping boys but in recent times they have dropped out of the blame game. Even Sinn Fein have taken to blaming the Germans, rather than the Brits, for everything. I suppose this could be regarded as progress of a sort).

The one thing you must never, ever, do is blame decent, honest, hardworking, innocent Sean Citizen for anything at all. Luckily, Sean Citizen is stupid enough to swallow your rhetoric and elect you.

This is called democracy.:mad:

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I can't seen even SF making it an actual policy that you should be allowed default on your mortgage if you've "better things" to be spending your money on.

I'm sure SF can't see that either, but tbf, that's not what Pearse Doherty was getting at. (not from how I read it)

He didn't put a spin on anything, he asked Duffy for examples of people that had money in other accounts, he mentioned college fees alright, I think his point being that he was getting Duffy to acknowledge the people he was referring to weren't in beamers, living it up in the Caribbean rather than pay the mortgage.

FF asked him a very similar question.

Fianna Fáil finance spokesperson Michael McGrath also probed the chief executive on a similar issue. He enquired about what circumstances mortgage holders who have entered into a negotiated settlement with bank would qualify for a ‘debt break for a period of time’. He referenced cases of bereavement or medical emergency.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Are people fooled by this? Some, no doubt. There does appear to be a constituency in the electorate who'll vote for people who tell them what they want to hear, no matter how unrealistic that may be.

As the current coalition can testify.

Chips Lovell

SamHall wrote: »

I think his point being that he was getting Duffy to acknowledge the people he was referring to weren't in beamers, living it up in the Caribbean rather than pay the mortgage.

Except Duffy never intimated that they were, so if that's what Doherty was doing, it was a useless exercise.

SamHall wrote: »

As the current coalition can testify.

Exactly.

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Except Duffy never intimated that they were, so if that's what Doherty was doing, it was a useless exercise.

I think anyone who doesn't give the mortgage first preference over any other bill isn't living in reality, so I sincerely hope that's not what he was doing.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Exactly.

Well, to be fair to Pearse Doherty, I think he freely admitted that David Duffy provided helpful information.

mariaalice

All political parties spin its just some are better than others at it and some examples of it are more jaw dropping that others.

boarsboard

a lot of people are going to vote fianna fail in the next election
they caused most of the problem,thats how stupid voters are



http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0903/471840-aib-oireachtas-committee/

jimmycrackcorm

GarIT wrote: »

Do people not see this as reasonable? I'm saving for college and that comes before the house, education is much more valuable to me than a house. We're not in arrears, but if it got to the point where it was a choice between college fees or the mortgage that got paid it would be the fees.

If you were homeless would you still prioritise paying fees over paying for accommodation or do you think it's ok not to pay off the back is the one who you have to pay.

COYW

Plenty of people out there love this kind of guff OP. It absolves them of any wrong doing. It is also the brand of victim politics that SF excels in and have mastered over the past few decades in Northern Ireland.

Expect more and more of this kind of rubbish ("Socialism") over the next few years. Decades of socialism has failed this country, yet people seems to want more and more of it. The mind boggles!

Nodin

COYW wrote: »

............

Expect more and more of this kind of rubbish ("Socialism") over the next few years. Decades of socialism has failed this country, yet people seems to want more and more of it. The mind boggles!

...it was de-regulation and capitalism, as far as I could see.

alastair

COYW wrote: »

Decades of socialism has failed this country, yet people seems to want more and more of it. The mind boggles!

Remind me again; which were the socialist decades?

golfball37

Developers have all gotten deals from banks for their loans when they refused to pay back what they owed. They didn't sacrifice their lifestyle one iota from what I can see.

Why should a distressed home owner act any differently. I'm in favour of strategic default as I believe the Irish banks deserve to go the wall unless they tackle the biggest issue facing a lot of people today.

Chips Lovell

And who's going to cover the cost of a banking collapse? The taxpayer of course.

jmayo

GarIT wrote: »

Do people not see this as reasonable? I'm saving for college and that comes before the house, education is much more valuable to me than a house. We're not in arrears, but if it got to the point where it was a choice between college fees or the mortgage that got paid it would be the fees.

And I presume you understand that in that case you should lose your home because you aren't paying for it ?

Banjo String wrote: »

My core issue would be a claim that a TD, opposed to the bank bailout, bondholders being repaid, and generally on the side of the citizens of the country,

Would these be the citizens that think the magic money tree will pay off their debts and they can keep their properties and the citizens who think that we can revoke the state spending cuts and yet fine some smucks to lend us money ?

As a citizen of this country I can categorically state that pierse doherty has never been on my side.

Valetta wrote: »

Going to college is a privilege, not a right.

Paying your mortgage is an obligation, not a choice.

Very well said.
A pity some people haven't copped on that salient truth.

alastair wrote: »

Remind me again; which were the socialist decades?

remember bertie who upped public spending and adopted joe higgins clothes.
We have never been right of centre in this country.
Our welfare system is better than most so scalled socialist states.

golfball37 wrote: »

Developers have all gotten deals from banks for their loans when they refused to pay back what they owed. They didn't sacrifice their lifestyle one iota from what I can see.

Why should a distressed home owner act any differently. I'm in favour of strategic default as I believe the Irish banks deserve to go the wall unless they tackle the biggest issue facing a lot of people today.

Well then you fooking pay for it.
I am already angry at paying for connected eejits like dunne, mcnamara, quinlan, ronan, kelly, carroll, etc, etc, etc without now being expected to cough up for the eejits down the road who think they should get to stay in the properties they could not afford in the first place without borrowing loads of money.

alastair

jmayo wrote: »

remember bertie who upped public spending and adopted joe higgins clothes.

I remember when he was rightly derided for trying to make that claim alright.

jmayo wrote: »

We have never been right of centre in this country.

We've never been an ideologically-driven state. Centrist populism has been our stock-in-trade, with a lean left or right from time to time (usually at the same time).

jmayo wrote: »

Our welfare system is better than most so scalled socialist states.

No it isn't.

View

jmayo wrote: »

We have never been right of centre in this country.

The electorate would appear to disagree since they have never, ever come close to giving the left of centre (or anything closely reassembling it) a majority.

Most of the electorate regard the Labour Party, never mind the other "left" parties, as being far too radical for them to vote for.

Cody Pomeray

I have to say I have nothing but respect for people who are strategiclly defaulting on their property.

Fúck it, if the banks want to play legal hardball with homeowners, let the homeowner bleed them dry. It's unfortunate that the Government have implicated the Exchequer in these matters, but that was not the decision of the homeowner, whose prerogative it remains to exercise his legal rights against an indefensibly stupid collection of organizations.

Roger_007

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I have to say I have nothing but respect for people who are strategiclly defaulting on their property.

Fúck it, if the banks want to play legal hardball with homeowners, let the homeowner bleed them dry. It's unfortunate that the Government have implicated the Exchequer in these matters, but that was not the decision of the homeowner, whose prerogative it remains to exercise his legal rights against an indefensibly stupid collection of organizations.

As long as you understand that every euro not paid back comes out of everyone else's pocket one way or the other.:(

Cody Pomeray

Roger_007 wrote: »

As long as you understand that every euro not paid back comes out of everyone else's pocket one way or the other.:(

Again, regrettable but not the homeowners responsibility.

If I own a house I can no longer afford, and the bank are not engaging with me, am I going to walk away from a house in which I am legally entitled to reside and use as my home?

You must be joking! Any sensible person in that situation is going to start saving, and continue living in that home as long as possible.

A normal person would meet public astonishment if he asked the banks to relinquish their contractual and statutory or other legal rights on grounds of compassion. Legal positivists on boards.ie (many of which reside in this section) would be singing in unison "we own the banks/ a bank is not a charity".

I see no reason why the homeowner should meet their exasperation and impassioned expectations with nothing less than an equal level of astonishment and dismissal.

Homeowners in arrears are not charities.

They owe the taxpayer nothing.

oscarBravo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

...the homeowner, whose prerogative it remains to exercise his legal rights...

Homeowners have a legal right to refuse to repay their debts, and to retain possession of the asset against which they've secured those debts?

Jack Kyle

If I was in arrears, struggling to get by month to month and had an amount equal to the arrears on deposit, I wouldn't clear the arrears.

That deposit could be an individual's only means of feeding their family.

I'd be far more hostile towards people who generate surplus funds every month but do not attempt to clear their arrears.

r3nu4l

cursai wrote: »

If education is more important. They should prioritise that and live within their means either by negotiating with the bank or selling or handing the house back.

Although this money in their deposits is not actually for these things and is a distraction and pluck at heartstrings by Sinn Fein(insert relevant political party). Which will distract and draw attention to them as it is doing.

I went to University during a time when you had to pay fees for the privilege. Thousands of families were unable to pay both mortgages AND fees and guess what the students did? They worked part-time jobs, cash in hand jobs, gave grinds to leaving cert students etc to earn money to pay fees. I completely disagree with anyone refusing to pay mortgage based on the fact that they need the money for college/university.

Deleted User wrote: »

With respect, no I don't see it as reasonable.

Agreed. I know that jobs may be hard to find for students but even so, defaulting on a mortgage when you actually have money is immoral imo. Just my opinion and anyone is free to disagree

Cody Pomeray

oscarBravo wrote: »

Homeowners have a legal right to refuse to repay their debts, and to retain possession of the asset against which they've secured those debts?

That would be nothing short of a total misreading of what I have said.

Homeowners enjoy a right to possess a property subject to their contractual arrangements with the bank, itself subject to the conveyancing acts, common law, and the constitutional environment. As we have seen, there are times when the relevant provisions impede or even prevent financial institutions from exercising their right to collateral on defaulted loans.

Further, the homeowners in arrears - just like the banks, with their problems - are entitled to make use of the political (or judicial) sensitivities impeding decisive action against them.

The bottom line is that evictions currently take a long time.

'Doomed' homeowners in arrears, or those with whom the bank does not engage, should exercise their rights sensibly, in accordance with the delay as it arises.

oscarBravo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I have to say I have nothing but respect for people who are strategiclly defaulting on their property.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That would be nothing short of a total misreading of what I have said.

A strategic defaulter, as I understand the term, is someone who can afford to pay their mortgage but chooses not to. Either you've argued that such people are within their legal rights to refuse to repay secured debts that they can afford to pay, or you're using the term to mean something other than what it's commonly understood to mean.

Cody Pomeray

oscarBravo wrote: »

A strategic defaulter, as I understand the term, is someone who can afford to pay their mortgage but chooses not to.

That's hardly a very informative or contentious definition in itself. A useful definition has to be slightly more critical.

Take the figure David Duffy gave to the Oireachtas Joint Committee regarding 2,000 in arrears who have cash savings in excess of their arrears. Well, what do most people who are about to enter arrears do? They switch to interest only, of course.

And if you're on interest only, and there is no foreseeable prospect of you being able to repay the capital, but the bank are not engaging on that front, then presuming you're a reasonably smart human being, cognisant of the legal and political environment, what do you do?

Ideally, you face up to reality, and exercise your legal rights in such a way as that yes you will lose your home eventually, but in the mean time you divert your interest payments into a savings account. Why pay the bank's financing costs for capital, and a security, which you cannot sustain? That would be totally stupid.

Just as the legal positivists remind us that banks are not charities, mortgagees are, equally, not selfless charitable benefactors. I have nothing but respect for someone who takes this kind of sensible approach to a contractual agreement where the counterparty is not engaging in a rational or an entrepreneurial manner.

beeftotheheels

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's hardly a very informative or contentious definition in itself. A useful definition has to be slightly more critical.

Take the figure David Duffy gave to the Oireachtas Joint Committee regarding 2,000 in arrears who have cash savings in excess of their arrears. Well, what do most people who are about to enter arrears do? They switch to interest only, of course.

And if you're on interest only, and there is no foreseeable prospect of you being able to repay the capital, but the bank are not engaging on that front, then presuming you're a reasonably smart human being, cognisant of the legal and political environment, what do you do?

Ideally, you face up to reality, and exercise your legal rights in such a way as that yes you will lose your home eventually, but in the mean time you divert your interest payments into a savings account. Why pay the bank's financing costs for capital, and a security, which you cannot sustain? That would be totally stupid.

Just as the legal positivists remind us that banks are not charities, mortgagees are, equally, not selfless charitable benefactors. I have nothing but respect for someone who takes this kind of sensible approach to a contractual agreement where the counterparty is not engaging in a rational or an entrepreneurial manner.

You're ignoring the legal reality. That money is owed to the bank. With a mortgage debt you can't hand back the keys and walk away, you still owe the bank the balance and if you've been squirreling away cash the bank can and will pursue that cash.

Banks are, much more so than previous years, cutting deals with borrowers but a prerequisite to them cutting a deal is that the borrower made all endeavors to repay them and engage.

The behavior above is not only not engaging, it is not making all endeavors and as a result could end up with the bank putting someone out of their home where otherwise they'd have parked a proportion of the debt to make the mortgage sustainable.

dlouth15

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Banks are, much more so than previous years, cutting deals with borrowers but a prerequisite to them cutting a deal is that the borrower made all endeavors to repay them and engage.

I would wonder, though, whether a lot of this is due to the recent personal insolvency legislation. If the banks don't cut a deal now they may stand to lose.

beeftotheheels

dlouth15 wrote: »

I would wonder, though, whether a lot of this is due to the recent personal insolvency legislation. If the banks don't cut a deal now they may stand to lose.

Nah, the banks control the new personal insolvency rules so there's no fear of them. It is just realism finally kicking in that a certain number of loans cannot and will not reasonably ever be repaid.

The Dunne case which prevented them repossessing did leave the banks in a quandary and created fear that there were more "strategic defaulters" safe in the knowledge that they couldn't lose their homes, but the loop hole there has now been fixed so they feel they can sort the can't payers out from the won't payers and try to offer solutions but with the threat of repossession if needed.

I mean if someone has a mortgage of €400k on a property now worth €150k and that person is in arrears but could afford to repay a mortgage of say €280k it makes more sense for the bank to allow the person repay the €280k, and park the €120k difference. Maybe the person will be able to repay it in the future, maybe the property market will come back, maybe it will eventually have to be written off.

But if the bank gets repaid the €280k (and maybe the other €120k in the future), the person keeps their home, it is a better solution all around to selling the house for €150k and chasing the now homeless family for the €250k when they have no assets or hope of repaying it ever.

Better for us as the bank shareholders, better for home owners.

Cody Pomeray

beeftotheheels wrote: »

You're ignoring the legal reality. That money is owed to the bank. With a mortgage debt you can't hand back the keys and walk away, you still owe the bank the balance and if you've been squirreling away cash the bank can and will pursue that cash.

I'm not suggesting this is a wise long terms saving strategy. I'm saying it is a pragmatic way of dealing with an unsustainable mortgage, where the borrower recognizes the folly of paying interest on unsustainable capital, and where the lender is not wiling to negotiate.

For that reason, in most situations, we're talking about fairly small amounts of money, maybe €5 or €10k which would otherwise have gone on interest payments. As Pearse Doherty said, it's the kind of saving you use for family expenditure - college registration fees, school fees, acquisition of a temporary residence when the ultimate day arrives.

These are the kind of people who are strategically defaulting. If anybody is swallowing this story from AIB that people are putting savings in excess of their arrears in view of the bank, and are expecting debt forgiveness, I suggest you are either totally naive or something less complimentary.

Jack Kyle

Precisely.

Most of these people probably have five or ten grand of savings which they need to meet day to day expenditure.

Who would use their last life raft to clear their arrears?

beeftotheheels

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

These are the kind of people who are strategically defaulting. If anybody is swallowing this story from AIB that people are putting savings in excess of their arrears in view of the bank, and are expecting debt forgiveness, I suggest you are either totally naive or something less complimentary.

No they are not even if that is what you wish to believe. There are people out there who knew post the 2011 decision that their home couldn't be repossessed and thus chose to take a punt that if they didn't repay their mortgage in full they would get some kind of debt relief.

The banks have appointed thousands of rent receivers in the buy-to-let market, and a rent receiver suggests in the majority of cases that strategic default was happening, otherwise why incur the costs of appointing the receiver?

Rents were being diverted, offshore in the case of one landlord interviewed in the SBP a couple of weeks back, because she thought she might get away with it for a while and was ultimately resigned to the fact her buy-to-lets would be sold off.

Yes, the majority of cases are hard cases, yes the majority of cases should be dealt with in good faith, but to pretend that there is no one out there dealing with the banks in bad faith is just not true. They may be a minority but the certainly do exist.