The Great Irish Sell Off Monday 9.30pm

beauf

Programme on Vulture funds in Ireland on now.

RandomAccess

We are in serious trouble it seems.

Wheeliebin30

Seems quite here. Thought there would be the usual uproar.

LuckyGent88

That was a serious eye opener for me. It's not something, I knew a lot about and wouldn't be in the position to.

Seriously dropped the ball on this one

older i get better i was

Not suprised by anything except the fact we couldnt even get the tax, that smells of people being bought off.

Eric Cartman

Its Ian Kehoe, I'm not shocked he interviewed Noam Chomsky, he bleeds left despite his affluent background.

I notice there wasn't a single part discussing personal responsibility and the people who borrowed too much, all a load of sob stories.

johnnyskeleton

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Seems quite here. Thought there would be the usual uproar.

Nothing new in it. Just a depressing reminder of how successive Irish governments have such a pathological hatred of the Irish people that they will do anything to ensure that property is sold to foreign investers rather than Irish owner occupiers.

techdiver

LuckyGent88 wrote: »

That was a serious eye opener for me. It's not something, I knew a lot about and wouldn't be in the position to.

Seriously dropped the ball on this one

It proves once again that every single time the government intervenes to "stimulate" the property market, they make a complete balls of it.

Watching the clips of Noonan reminds me of the old gob****es you see on the pub arguing about everything and anything without knowing a single thing about it! This is the man running our economy ffs!

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its Ian Kehoe, I'm not shocked he interviewed Noam Chomsky, he bleeds left despite his affluent background.

I notice there wasn't a single part discussing personal responsibility and the people who borrowed too much, all a load of sob stories.

Yep sob stories of not taxing any profit at all.

Well done sir you've managed to victim blame. And by victim I mean the tax payer.


No tax on profits of a quarter of a billion.

Your having a laugh mate

johnnyskeleton

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its Ian Kehoe, I'm not shocked he interviewed Noam Chomsky, he bleeds left despite his affluent background.

I notice there wasn't a single part discussing personal responsibility and the people who borrowed too much, all a load of sob stories.

Well this is a problem too, but the point is that NAMA has preferred to sell to a few foreign investors rather than putting properties on the open market. Because it wouldnt do if Jimmy down the road bought an apartment for half its 2006 price dontchaknow. Better to sell it to an anonymous fund for a third of the price.

Hunchback

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its Ian Kehoe, I'm not shocked he interviewed Noam Chomsky, he bleeds left despite his affluent background.

I notice there wasn't a single part discussing personal responsibility and the people who borrowed too much, all a load of sob stories.

Perhaps they could make another program about that? But the issue of tax collection is an important one highlighted by this program that many people will have been glad was discussed, especially if they are hearing it for the first time.

Eric Cartman

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well this is a problem too, but the point is that NAMA has preferred to sell to a few foreign investors rather than putting properties on the open market. Because it wouldnt do if Jimmy down the road bought an apartment for half its 2006 price dontchaknow. Better to sell it to an anonymous fund for a third of the price.

That, I have to say I disagree with. The rest is just business.

Eric Cartman

listermint wrote: »

Yep sob stories of not taxing any profit at all.

Well done sir you've managed to victim blame. And by victim I mean the tax payer.


No tax on profits of a quarter of a billion.

Your having a laugh mate

victim blame, victim blame.
If you fell into arrears on a mortgage on a 2006 priced property then you are not a victim, you did this to yourself.

Boaty

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Seems quite here. Thought there would be the usual uproar.

That's because the people that are loud have free houses and this doesn't effect them

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

victim blame, victim blame.
If you fell into arrears on a mortgage on a 2006 priced property then you are not a victim, you did this to yourself.

Strange that you jumped over the bit about taxes and the tax payer which is what my entire post is about.

Laughable

flutered

many people have been proved correct by the makers of this program, the same people who have been laughed, at sneered, at work ant play when socialising, especially on social media by paid sspin doctors, who had the job at having a go at anyone who attempted to question any part of the goverments spin

Eric Cartman

listermint wrote: »

Strange that you jumped over the bit about taxes and the tax payer which is what my entire post is about.

Laughable

I commend the funds for not paying tax. Taxation is far too high in Ireland and the tax break to encourage these funds (as was explained, in the show) was much needed. If they had to pay tax, they wouldn't have come.

Wheeliebin30

Can we all agree now that when the anti brigade say rte are controlled by the government that they are in fact talking through their hole?

Allinall

Boaty wrote: »

That's because the people that are loud have free houses and this doesn't effect them

I bought and am still paying for my own house, and this doesn't effect me .

Pete Moss

Eric Cartman wrote:

victim blame, victim blame. If you fell into arrears on a mortgage on a 2006 priced property then you are not a victim, you did this to yourself.

But that's not the argument. The point isn't people unable to repay mortgages, which they overpaid for without foresight.
The point is these properties are being bought in a completely unregulated manner. The tax on these properties is practically nonexistent.
People did borrow what they could not afford in an unregulated system. Now these properties are being bought for a fraction of the cost in an unregulated system.

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I commend the funds for not paying tax. Taxation is far too high in Ireland and the tax break to encourage these funds (as was explained, in the show) was much needed. If they had to pay tax, they wouldn't have come.

Now I know your only here for the windup.

Enjoy your night of further wind ups.

Whatever gives folks jollies I suppose.

I'm out.

Eric Cartman

Pete Moss wrote: »

But that's not the argument. The point isn't people unable to repay mortgages, which they overpaid for without foresight.
The point is these properties are being bought in a completely unregulated manner. The tax on these properties is practically nonexistent.
People did borrow what they could not afford in an unregulated system. Now these properties are being bought for a fraction of the cost in an unregulated system.

if the mortgages were being paid, the asset never would have been sold.

the assets were sold at a time when nobody domestically was buying,
the only way to get a buyer was to strip value and give a tax break.
it worked, quite well, as we saw.

johnnyskeleton

Eric Cartman wrote: »

That, I have to say I disagree with. The rest is just business.

Id have no problem with the business of it if they sold the properties on the open market so anyone could buy them. But that wasnt what happened. Very few properties acquired by NAMA were sold privately. And a govenrnment selling socialised assets to a select group of people isnt "just business"

Eric Cartman

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Id have no problem with the business of it if they sold the properties on the open market so anyone could buy them. But that wasnt what happened. Very few properties acquired by NAMA were sold privately. And a govenrnment selling socialised assets to a select group of people isnt "just business"

very true, as I said, i disagreed with that practice, that farmer who's brother offered to buy out the loan should have been allowed, all these assets should have been listed publicly as with the illustrated italian model.

but to say the assets shouldn't have been repossessed or bitching about a tax deal is just people being sore.

They're called parasite vulture funds because they take all the value while giving nothing back, all the money earned by the vultures will be sucked out of the country. and the debts will still remain on the taxpayer's tab.

johnnyskeleton

Eric Cartman wrote: »

but to say the assets shouldn't have been repossessed or bitching about a tax deal is just people being sore.

Its one thing to say "i begrudge someone else getting a tax break". Its another thing entirely to say "i wish the government didnt set up this legislative system whereby foreign funds are incentivised to buy irish property while disincentivising irish citizens from buying property". The tax deal feeds directly into the latter, so I dont think its people merely being sore about other people getting the tax breaks, its what these tax breaks have caused which is the scandal.

WoollyRedHat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

very true, as I said, i disagreed with that practice, that farmer who's brother offered to buy out the loan should have been allowed, all these assets should have been listed publicly as with the illustrated italian model.

but to say the assets shouldn't have been repossessed or bitching about a tax deal is just people being sore.

It's not people being sore, it's people who pay a high rate of tax, do not get the expected services and then see these hedge funds come in and pay no tax at all, making massive profitis on the back of the taxpayer..is that equitable?

Eric Cartman

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

It's not people being sore, it's people who pay a high rate of tax, do not get the expected services and then see these hedge funds come in and pay no tax at all, making massive profitis on the back of the taxpayer..is that equitable?

not really , but i'd say roll out the tax breaks for all, rather than everyone pay and get no services. The vulture funds found a way around taxation, because tax money is a waste here, they were smart. Its the same reason people pay an accountant and tax planner a lot of money to keep the revenue out of their pockets too.

Berserker

As a matter of interest, what options does the government have with respect to these funds? My job pays most of my rent and I will never buy a property in Ireland, so I am out of touch with the market and all things property related to a certain extent. Why can't the government buy back these apartments etc and release them to the market here for people to buy, FTBs and the like?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I notice there wasn't a single part discussing personal responsibility and the people who borrowed too much, all a load of sob stories.

The programme wasn't about individuals who borrowed too much and their lack of personal responsibility, so why would they cover that?

Eric Cartman

Berserker wrote: »

As a matter of interest, what options does the government have with respect to these funds? My job pays most of my rent and I will never buy a property in Ireland, so I am out of touch with the market and all things property related to a certain extent. Why can't the government buy back these apartments etc and release them to the market here for people to buy, FTBs and the like?



The programme wasn't about individuals who borrowed too much and their lack of personal responsibility, so why would they cover that?

well it certainly featured a load of them, between the people in Ireland, Italy and the couple in the US. People who were unable to pay were brought on as horrible victims of the vulture funds , sob stories and all and about how evil it was. No mention that perhaps not paying a mortgage generally should result in home loss.

It even went so far as to celebrate debtors victories over funds in courts.

impr0v

There are a few disconnected points that occur to me after watching.

First: it's striking how naive people are. They expect these specialist businesses to exhibit some kind of conscience. That's not business.

Second: it's easy to moan about the profits the funds made now, when the assets have recovered. Many of the funds gambled on these assets and would have had to eat the losses if things didn't work out this way. It doesn't sit well with me that we, as a country, are moaning about this now, when we were very happy to take the cash when we needed it.

Third: Noonan is getting a lot of flak on Twitter. His brief was to plug the sinking ship with cash. He did that. At some cost to his health too, it should be said. He made a relatively good fist of a very poor situation. Funds were the only show in town.

Fourth: Paddy is surprised that his offer of cash to buy out his house at its current valuation is rejected. Of course it has. Paddy just identified himself as a mark, which can be squeezed to offset the loss (or smaller profit) made on someone who simply cannot pay.

More broadly: the funds take a gamble on the portfolio as a whole, and the portfolios are mixed for a reason. If the better assets could be picked out the dross would be unsellable and would remain with the state.

Finally: debt is debt. If the borrower could repay the loan that it obtained them it wouldn't matter to whom the debt was sold. The borrower can still avail of the same terms - interest rate, repayments, etc.

Berserker

Eric Cartman wrote: »

It even went so far as to celebrate debtors victories over funds in courts.

I understand what you are saying and I agree that there is an issue with that in Ireland but it wasn't the focus of the programme. I would love to see RTE doing a documentary about all the people who borrowed themselves into oblivion.

Silverbling

I was of that generation and have a reply about people borrowing beyond their means, it is 100% the banks fault.

If I went to a doctor and was winging an extra 5000 calories a week it is his job to tell me very firmly I am outside my limits and it could be dangerous.

I was self employed with investments and saw a very lovely large house I wanted to buy (I could afford my half of the repayments, so could my then ex husband)

In 2001 it was a substantial house in the arse end of nowhere for €312,000, my books did not stack up, my ex husband was PRSI, instead of saying no, the broker did what he needed to do, for the accountant to do what he needed to do for the banks to say yes, the developer winged a few bits, we ducked a few bits and we got the house.

Had I stayed happily married then it would have been a success story.

The brokers/accountants/banks were paid highly to see into your future, instead they were adding on illegal insurance policy's and selling us debt that should it all go belly up could not be repaid.

I am still chasing my claim, as I was self employed they massively loaded my mortgage with a policy that was illegal, when my business closed due to me becoming quite ill and my marriage ending around the same time there was no protection to be paid out.

19 years ago I paid €380 a month mortgage insurance to protect me, on top of the mortgage, it was all a massive big con on all sides, I gave them what they wanted to get the house, they got the dodgy accounts they needed, none of it was real, cancer was not in the t&c's. (check your policy's folk's)

You can not blame people, the experts are supposed to be there and are paid big money to protect people from their own stupidity.

Paulw

Silverbling wrote: »

I was of that generation and have a reply about people borrowing beyond their means, it is 100% the banks fault.

I totally disagree with you there. Yes, there were some cases where the banks were at fault, but the vast majority of situations were not like that.

Many people wanted a bigger property or just rushed to buy a property. I know many people who "traded up", and borrowed as much as they could possibly afford, but they took no view to any sort of crash.

I bought at the height. I was a single person, and bought a 3 bed property by myself and for myself. I didn't overstretch myself. I looked at how much I could afford and went with that. I didn't go with what the bank would loan me, which was a hell of a lot more money.

My property is in negative equity still, just about. But, it is my home, and now family home (wife and child with me). I have no plan on moving any time soon. I can still afford my mortgage. I was even made redundant and am still not distressed nor in arrears.

People were greedy. People thought fund were endless. People thought that a boom only goes one way. No one considered any sort of crash, and then when it hit, people want someone else to blame.

Turfcutter

I thought these funds came over here to make a loss and provide people with accommodation at a song.

thierry14

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its Ian Kehoe, I'm not shocked he interviewed Noam Chomsky, he bleeds left despite his affluent background.

I notice there wasn't a single part discussing personal responsibility and the people who borrowed too much, all a load of sob stories.

How old are you?

dotsman

Silverbling wrote: »

I was of that generation and have a reply about people borrowing beyond their means, it is 100% the banks fault.


...
blah
blah
blah
...

You're post is hilarious! You start off by saying it is 100% the bank's fault. But then you say how you specifically hired a specialist to squeeze/force as much money out of the banks as possible.

Then you rattle on about how a bank is supposed to predict the future and know that, years later that you would split up with your husband.

Not sure what you are on about with the insurance. Either you signed up to it or you didn't. If you didn't, then you, of course, deserve a refund. If you did, then I don't know what you are complaining about.

The next time you want to know who is "100% at fault", please take a look in the mirror. While you are at it, take a selfie so you can always see who was to blame.

P.S. If you were cooking your books (as you allude to), then it is the bank who should be pi$$ed off with you, not the other way around.

P.P.S. Not sure about your doctor analogy. When you hire the services of a doctor, you are paying them to analyse/guide/assist with your health. When you borrow from a bank, you are paying them to lend you money which you are responsible for.



I really thought, at this stage, there was nobody left in the country with this attitude anymore, but clearly I was wrong

robp

listermint wrote: »

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I commend the funds for not paying tax. Taxation is far too high in Ireland and the tax break to encourage these funds (as was explained, in the show) was much needed. If they had to pay tax, they wouldn't have come.

Now I know your only here for the windup.

Enjoy your night of further wind ups.

Whatever gives folks jollies I suppose.

I'm out.

One could argue such funds or any fund or corporation shouldn't pay any tax. Companies aren't people, they don't consume the money. There is a huge difference between a company and an individual paying no tax. I am not very opinionated on either side on the matter but the real moral issue is the lack of a level playing field. a vulture fund might avoid tax but the small corner shop may pay rather a lot of tax.

Silverbling

Paulw wrote: »

I totally disagree with you there. Yes, there were some cases where the banks were at fault, but the vast majority of situations were not like that.

Many people wanted a bigger property or just rushed to buy a property. I know many people who "traded up", and borrowed as much as they could possibly afford, but they took no view to any sort of crash.

I bought at the height. I was a single person, and bought a 3 bed property by myself and for myself. I didn't overstretch myself. I looked at how much I could afford and went with that. I didn't go with what the bank would loan me, which was a hell of a lot more money.

My property is in negative equity still, just about. But, it is my home, and now family home (wife and child with me). I have no plan on moving any time soon. I can still afford my mortgage. I was even made redundant and am still not distressed nor in arrears.

People were greedy. People thought fund were endless. People thought that a boom only goes one way. No one considered any sort of crash, and then when it hit, people want someone else to blame.

But how old are you? for my age it was our 2nd recession, we lived through the first so thought it would be the same, and to be honest we winged it in the 80's too

People thought the banks funds were endless, the banks should have said no as they are doing now, you can only borrow as much as someone will lend you.

It is 100% the banks fault, they are the so called experts, they should have seen what was happening but everyone was making huge commissions, my mortgage on a 4000 sq ft house was €1600 a month, then they made divorce
legal, but had no provision in law about mortgage payments between warring partners, that caused havoc.

hytrogen

impr0v wrote:

Second: it's easy to moan about the profits the funds made now, when the assets have recovered. Many of the funds gambled on these assets and would have had to eat the losses if things didn't work out this way. It doesn't sit well with me that we, as a country, are moaning about this now, when we were very happy to take the cash when we needed it.

Sounds quite a similar reaction to when the EU and IMF came knocking for the money they "lent us" when we were sold the idea many moons before that that is was "grants aid for everything and would be paid back through general taxation" not austerity and fire sales of state assets thank you very much Bertie & the Brian's...

hytrogen

Silverbling wrote:

I was of that generation and have a reply about people borrowing beyond their means, it is 100% the banks fault.

As a generation-inherate I 100% blame your greedy generation for crippling my ability to purchase deeds because of this whole mess you squandered for my children, yes that's right your grandchildren!

I also advocate for any new couple coming into the market to give the system the royal two and broker a single income-based mortgage. Any of these vulture funds will smell that the money's drying up and noone's going to gamble as ludacrisly or ostentatiously as our forefathers, will move onto the next ailing economy for their big percentage returns and leave us in peace

newacc2015

impr0v wrote: »

Second: it's easy to moan about the profits the funds made now, when the assets have recovered. Many of the funds gambled on these assets and would have had to eat the losses if things didn't work out this way. It doesn't sit well with me that we, as a country, are moaning about this now, when we were very happy to take the cash when we needed it.

Is it really a gamble when you know that assets are so distressed that immediately you are buying them below market value? A lot of these funds were buying property far too cheap for anyone to believe they were paying a fair price. If you also did the math on some of the properties they were buying. If you are buying a property that cost €350k to build for €150k, realistically there is only one way for that property to go up when the economy recovers. Ireland isnt Greece or Spain, when the US and UK recovered, our economy was sure to recover too. These funds can say they took a punt, which they did.

But lets not pretend the massive reward was due to the risk. There was office blocks housing blue chip American companies being sold with 10/15% yield. Where is the risk in that?

[/QUOTE]

impr0v wrote: »

Third: Noonan is getting a lot of flak on Twitter. His brief was to plug the sinking ship with cash. He did that. At some cost to his health too, it should be said. He made a relatively good fist of a very poor situation. Funds were the only show in town.

True. But what they did after the great depression in America, was made mortgage lending easier. They made it easier for American families to buy homes. The state could have encouraged our recapitalised banks to lend to low risk consumers. These houses and apartments could have been sold to Irish consumers on a dime, rather than a faceless Texas fund. Instead our banks shut down and we decided to sell of assets tax free.

Our NPRF could have brought distressed assets which made sense ie HQs of blue chip American companies ie low risk. Apartment blocks with 10/15% yield in the middle of Dublin 2. Our semi-state pension funds could have brought property. Instead we chose to sell to unregulated funds with massive tax breaks.

impr0v wrote: »

Finally: debt is debt. If the borrower could repay the loan that it obtained them it wouldn't matter to whom the debt was sold. The borrower can still avail of the same terms - interest rate, repayments, etc.

[/QUOTE]

A bank is a bank, which is a regulated entity with morals, objectives and shareholders that it is accountable to. Yes it objectives is to make as much profit as possible, but a 200 year old bank doesnt want to **** up its image. Hence the reason why banks will often sell on a loan book to venture funds than go to the courts to enforce it

A vulture fund is not a bank. That means it is had zero rules or regulations placed on it until 2015. Joe Bloggs could have brought a mortgage book in 2014 and literally done whatever he wanted. He could decide that since the loan book was made up of variable customers that he double their mortgage interest rate from 4% to 8%. How can he do that? He is not a bank and there is no rules over the interest rates he can charge. There is still no rules on this. Those 90k mortgage holders on variable interest rates could open a letter one morning to tell them their mortgage interest rate has doubled. Do you not see an issue with that?

A vulture fund isn't a bank. So they didn't have to follow MARP or CCMA etc until 2015. That meant that they could basically ask for your house to be repossessed without the procedures a bank will follow

The taxpayer should be concerned with who owns your debt. The profit AIB and BOI make on your mortgage is taxed within the state. Each repayment you make contributes to our health system, our education system, roads, water etc. Your mortgage owned by a vulture fund, is probably owned by a charity(which is managed by a certain big 5 firm). They are a 'charity' in name, but in reality they are a tax dodge. So when you pay your mortgage to a vulture fund, that money is flowing of the state tax free to Texas, NY etc. When 90k mortgages are held by tax dodging funds, guess whose education system etc will suffer?

It does make a difference who your debt is owned by. A bank is a regulated entity. A vulture fund is not really regulated at all. Those two repayments you missed in 2009 could result in your house up on the auction block.

These firms aren't here to stay. They have one objective only which is to extract as much profit tax free within 3-5 years regardless of their image and collateral damage. BOI and AIB aren't going to do that. That is why you should care who owns your debt.

quadrifoglio verde

These funds came in and bought at a time when stuff couldn't be given away.
It paid off for them but had it not they'd have left with their tails between their legs.
This wasn't performing debt. It was non performing debt back in 2011 and 2012 and in some cases still is. Luckily for the funds asset prices have picked up
Luckily for us, they were there with the cheque book when we needed their money to get rid of what was essentially **** of the balance sheets
In hindsight did they get a good deal. Certainly. They've made a killing. But in 2011 Ireland and property was the biggest joke in town and they took a might risk.
Big risk big reward. Its why state saving bonds today give you feck all. It's why they gave you 60% in 2011 over 10 years.

beauf

impr0v wrote: »

There are a few disconnected points that occur to me after watching.

First: it's striking how naive people are. They expect these specialist businesses to exhibit some kind of conscience. That's not business.

Second: it's easy to moan about the profits the funds made now, when the assets have recovered. Many of the funds gambled on these assets and would have had to eat the losses if things didn't work out this way. It doesn't sit well with me that we, as a country, are moaning about this now, when we were very happy to take the cash when we needed it.

Third: Noonan is getting a lot of flak on Twitter. His brief was to plug the sinking ship with cash. He did that. At some cost to his health too, it should be said. He made a relatively good fist of a very poor situation. Funds were the only show in town.

Fourth: Paddy is surprised that his offer of cash to buy out his house at its current valuation is rejected. Of course it has. Paddy just identified himself as a mark, which can be squeezed to offset the loss (or smaller profit) made on someone who simply cannot pay.

More broadly: the funds take a gamble on the portfolio as a whole, and the portfolios are mixed for a reason. If the better assets could be picked out the dross would be unsellable and would remain with the state.

Finally: debt is debt. If the borrower could repay the loan that it obtained them it wouldn't matter to whom the debt was sold. The borrower can still avail of the same terms - interest rate, repayments, etc.

I think there's a bigger issue here. They had a fire sale to vulture funds. When they could have sold to owners here at a greater profit. People were waiting to buy and Nama said it wasn't going to do a fire sale so as not to collapse the market. What they actually was did was fire sale the property out from under Irish owners.

Now we have an overheated market and a gigantic housing crisis. We also now have massive amounts of property in funds who's only increased to adding fuel to this.

It was a panic fire sale, sold off way too cheap, and we'll be paying for it for years, and we have a housing crisis.

So saying it worked. What worked?

beauf

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

These funds came in and bought at a time when stuff couldn't be given away.
It paid off for them but had it not they'd have left with their tails between their legs.
This wasn't performing debt. It was non performing debt back in 2011 and 2012 and in some cases still is. Luckily for the funds asset prices have picked up
Luckily for us, they were there with the cheque book when we needed their money to get rid of what was essentially **** of the balance sheets
In hindsight did they get a good deal. Certainly. They've made a killing. But in 2011 Ireland and property was the biggest joke in town and they took a might risk.
Big risk big reward. Its why state saving bonds today give you feck all. It's why they gave you 60% in 2011 over 10 years.

What we've done is bought high sold low. Now we have a shortage in the very thing we just sold, and will now have to buy high again.

Worse still we have to pay for the housing of people we've just made homeless. So we are paying even more for it all over again.

quadrifoglio verde

beauf wrote: »

What we've done is bought high sold low. Now we have a shortage in the very thing we just sold, and will now have to buy high again.

Worse still we have to pay for the housing of people we've just made homeless. So we are paying even more for it all over again.

That is today though. This was back in 2011- 2012 when there was no money
Nada. Zilch.

You have loans which aren't being repaid. Which are on the books of the nationalised banks or nama. Banks whom it's looking like you're going to have to throw more money at. A nama that looks like its going to make a colossal loss.

Funds offer to buy the debt at a discount. You take the money because in the short term it's badly needed. You have to remember we were locked out of the international markets.
It's not 2017 where you can borrow 4 billion over 20 years at 1.7%.
It's 2011, 10 year bond yields have hit 14%, 2 years 23%. You take that money and you sell those non performing debts. They're a liability to the taxpayer and the money keeps the street lights on.
The worry in 2011 was getting the stuff of the government's balance sheet, not what it might one day be worth.

davindub

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

That is today though. This was back in 2011- 2012 when there was no money
Nada. Zilch.

You have loans which aren't being repaid. Which are on the books of the nationalised banks or nama. Banks whom it's looking like you're going to have to throw more money at. A nama that looks like its going to make a colossal loss.

Funds offer to buy the debt at a discount. You take the money because in the short term it's badly needed. You have to remember we were locked out of the international markets.
It's not 2017 where you can borrow 4 billion over 20 years at 1.7%.
It's 2011, 10 year bond yields have hit 14%, 2 years 23%. You take that money and you sell those non performing debts. They're a liability to the taxpayer and the money keeps the street lights on.
The worry in 2011 was getting the stuff of the government's balance sheet, not what it might one day be worth.

That was the theory....but then you 2015......50% off market value of the property sold to Brook tree and all the rest of the corrupt decisions. No way anyone in their right mind would sell at 50% discount.

beauf

Nama was always going to make a loss. They could have made better deals, instead they've sold en-masse (which they said they wouldn't) to the lowest bidder, and thrown away the tax income and fueled gigantic housing crisis at the same time.

In 2011 all we heard was people trying to deals with the banks and for the property to be sold at less then what they were offering. never made sense then, doesn't now.

impr0v

Silverbling wrote: »

You can not blame people, the experts are supposed to be there and are paid big money to protect people from their own stupidity.

I'm sorry for your troubles, but I don't agree with this. You hired 'the experts' to help you secure the house you wanted. They did their job. You have to take responsibility for the stupidity part.

listermint

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

That is today though. This was back in 2011- 2012 when there was no money
Nada. Zilch.

You have loans which aren't being repaid. Which are on the books of the nationalised banks or nama. Banks whom it's looking like you're going to have to throw more money at. A nama that looks like its going to make a colossal loss.

Funds offer to buy the debt at a discount. You take the money because in the short term it's badly needed. You have to remember we were locked out of the international markets.
It's not 2017 where you can borrow 4 billion over 20 years at 1.7%.
It's 2011, 10 year bond yields have hit 14%, 2 years 23%. You take that money and you sell those non performing debts. They're a liability to the taxpayer and the money keeps the street lights on.
The worry in 2011 was getting the stuff of the government's balance sheet, not what it might one day be worth.

The funds were never making a loss on there investments to say that was likely would be to go against every single recession for the last 100 years. The funds entered the market 3 years after everything had gone south. The pretence here that they were making some big gamble us laughable. We had property magnets coming back from Germany spending hundreds of millions the year before it was obvious that Ireland was Dawson city.

The biggest issue here is our idiots in government being played again and not capitalising on any recovery via taxes. We were. Played by the banks and then played by the funds we went in with a mentality of getting everything off the books when history dictates that they were all assets.

Lunacy utter lunacy

Barely Hedged

listermint wrote: »

The funds were never making a loss on there investments to say that was likely would be to go against every single recession for the last 100 years. The funds entered the market 3 years after everything had gone south. The pretence here that they were making some big gamble us laughable. We had property magnets coming back from Germany spending hundreds of millions the year before it was obvious that Ireland was Dawson city.

The biggest issue here is our idiots in government being played again and not capitalising on any recovery via taxes. We were. Played by the banks and then played by the funds we went in with a mentality of getting everything off the books when history dictates that they were all assets.

Lunacy utter lunacy

Hindsight is a great thing.

If only the government could have tendered for hindsight in 2011 and used this bought hindsight to subsequently convince the markets to lower the yields we were paying on rolling our national debt. All this while holding onto all the banks assets that would appreciate again and sell at the top of the market.

Idiots indeed or idiotic for believing this is a plausible outcome?