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
General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]
Options
Comments
-
I absolutely despise Leo Varadkar, much more so than, say, scammers like Ahern or Haughey.
Why?
The manipulation of voters with "Brand Ireland" - the 'government of Ireland initiatives' (on radio/TV) & the Ireland2040 bollocks.
The American accent.
The style & presentation over substance.
The snide personal tory-like attacks on various groups he doesn't like (like the 'left')
The complete bunch of amateurs he appointed to cabinet (incl himself) who look more like a student union than a government.
Targeting separate sections of society (be they health workers or those having their homes repossessed).
Being a complete West Brit.0 -
https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2018/1228/1019346-hospital-staff-strike/
"The prediction comes as figures show a more than 50% fall in the number of people on trolleys awaiting admission to a hospital bed.
The statistics, from the Irish Nurses and Midwives' Organisation, indicate there were 166 people on trolleys in emergency departments today.
This compares to a figure of 347 on this day last year."
It always puzzles me that we rely on a vested interest to provide the numbers, but should I be surprised that nobody is commenting on the reduction in numbers?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19092
Matt Barrett wrote: »So the man who would be CEO (his words) of Irish society seems to favour vulture funds over banks.
This raises a few questions. The tax payer bailed out the banks, part owned some. We were told this was essential. What ever about ones feelings about banks, most of them pay taxes back to the state coffers and have brick and mortar operations for the most part in Ireland.
It's my understanding that vulture funds operate under favourable rates of taxation?
Then of course, there's the recourse a indebted mortgage holder can approach an Irish Bank and even a politician in an effort to work out a repayment deal meaning the family may get to avoid homelessness.
Saying...
Well, given their huge losses, bankrolled by the Irish taxpayer, they will not be paying any tax on profits for decades. Of course, bankers justify their need for high salaries because of the need to get the best for the job. Of course when we were paying the highest salaries, boosted by huge bonuses, and still the banking system crashed.
Now I have no time for vulture funds, but at least we will not be picking up their bondholders debts. As to taxing them, well we have a budget every year and can change the tax system to increase the yield from them.
I do not understand why we had a fire sale of state assets and sold off stuff for half nothing.0 -
Peter Flynt wrote: »I absolutely despise Leo Varadkar, much more so than, say, scammers like Ahern or Haughey.
Why?
The manipulation of voters with "Brand Ireland" - the 'government of Ireland initiatives' (on radio/TV) & the Ireland2040 bollocks.
The American accent.
The style & presentation over substance.
The snide personal tory-like attacks on various groups he doesn't like (like the 'left')
The complete bunch of amateurs he appointed to cabinet (incl himself) who look more like a student union than a government.
Targeting separate sections of society (be they health workers or those having their homes repossessed).
Being a complete West Brit.
You don’t like someone because if their accent? His accent sounds quite neutral to me.0 -
What has Leo actually done for people who earn a living or are 'rich' though. I see a few soundbits and his vaugely posh accent rialls people up into a fury like thatcher has come back from the dead and is using him as her host, but the reality of it is , everything Leo has done has been centre left - centre.
Ok he knocked a few quid off taxes, but he also gave the christmas bonus back to the GimmeGimmeGimme's, most if not all of his social policies have been pulled from the left , his economic policies just seem like the labour party wrote them.
Looking past the polished media appearance, he isnt actually doing any of these 'right wing' things people so famously love or hate him for.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peter Flynt wrote: »I absolutely despise Leo Varadkar, much more so than, say, scammers like Ahern or Haughey.
Why?
The manipulation of voters with "Brand Ireland" - the 'government of Ireland initiatives' (on radio/TV) & the Ireland2040 bollocks.
The American accent.
The style & presentation over substance.
The snide personal tory-like attacks on various groups he doesn't like (like the 'left')
The complete bunch of amateurs he appointed to cabinet (incl himself) who look more like a student union than a government.
Targeting separate sections of society (be they health workers or those having their homes repossessed).
Being a complete West Brit.
Petty, shallow complaints.
Going beyond the personal where has the money gone, which is what matters? Huge commitments to public expenditure as against tax reductions in the three budgets and social welfare increases continuing at a lick. Plus all the money/measures for the houses/tenants etc.0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »What has Leo actually done for people who earn a living or are 'rich' though. I see a few soundbits and his vaugely posh accent rialls people up into a fury like thatcher has come back from the dead and is using him as her host, but the reality of it is , everything Leo has done has been centre left - centre.
Ok he knocked a few quid off taxes, but he also gave the christmas bonus back to the GimmeGimmeGimme's, most if not all of his social policies have been pulled from the left , his economic policies just seem like the labour party wrote them.
Looking past the polished media appearance, he isnt actually doing any of these 'right wing' things people so famously love or hate him for.
The welfare junkies should be erecting statues in his honour- he has done everything to assist them further- on the backs of honest working people0 -
-
The welfare junkies should be erecting statues in his honour- he has done everything to assist them further- on the backs of honest working peopleEric Cartman wrote: »What has Leo actually done for people who earn a living or are 'rich' though. I see a few soundbits and his vaugely posh accent rialls people up into a fury like thatcher has come back from the dead and is using him as her host, but the reality of it is , everything Leo has done has been centre left - centre.
Ok he knocked a few quid off taxes, but he also gave the christmas bonus back to the GimmeGimmeGimme's, most if not all of his social policies have been pulled from the left , his economic policies just seem like the labour party wrote them.
Looking past the polished media appearance, he isnt actually doing any of these 'right wing' things people so famously love or hate him for.
Making it a us verses them, which ever side we believe ourselves to be on, is too simplistic. I would however make it an Irish society verses the interests of foreign vulture funds and query as to why Varadkar seems to have faith that these vulture funds will treat indebted householders well, or in the least as well as a previously tax payer bailed out bank beholden to the state to some degree?And, despite what the Taoiseach may believe, there are no compelling ‘numbers’ that can tell how the funds will behave with ordinary Irish households.
Along with the Central Bank and Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe, the Taoiseach has now given his outright support to the three Irish mortgage lenders — over which the Government in part or fully controls — to sell vast amounts of distressed residential mortgages to the foreign funds.
This means that Ireland is about to embark on a big experiment that few other countries would embrace: Funds with no long-term grounding here will take control over many billions worth in long-term mortgages originally written by banks licensed and bailed out by the State.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/taoiseach-takes-it-on-faith-vultures-will-write-down-soured-mortgages-894700.html
Varadkar is essentially promoting and backing Irish banking institutions in the selling of loans to foreign interest debt collectors.
For me this is a good example of what's wrong with Fine Gael and Varadkar, the Thatcher element to it all. Take under performing debts and sell them off to vulture funds. The banks selling getting a better rating, the vulture funds make a nice lightly taxed profit and, well the homeowner can be consigned to the 'GimmeGimmeGimme' group, that way when they need putting up in a hotel, we can yak about 'entitlement'.0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,892 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 64863
-
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote:Varadkar is essentially promoting and backing Irish banking institutions in the selling of loans to foreign interest debt collectors.
What do you think of the rational that investment funds want to make money on the loans and are able to make deals with people that for a variety of reasons the main banks cannot ? Are you going to analyze the reasons behind the comments or just resort to ad hominen attacks on Varadkar. Judging from his comments its good to see we have someone in charge that actually looks at the detail instead resorting to what ever slogan of the day is going. A shame he doesn't do this more often.0 -
What do you think of the rational that investment funds want to make money on the loans and are able to make deals with people that for a variety of reasons the main banks cannot ? Are you going to analyze the reasons behind the comments or just resort to ad hominen attacks on Varadkar. Judging from his comments its good to see we have someone in charge that actually looks at the detail instead resorting to what ever slogan of the day is going. A shame he doesn't do this more often.
For a start they're not called "investment funds", they're called "vulture funds" and they are usually a bunch of thugs who <SNIP>
Someone in charge?
Who's that?0 -
Its heavily assisted by suspending elective surgeries, meaning waiting lists elsewhere get worse.
I reference crises depending on the topic. Numbers are down yet 2018 had the highest level, so suffice it to say, there's a crisis. I wish the state well in any endeavor to tackle all it's crises.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22733
Mod Note
Hi folks,
Don't forget to read the charter. In particular:Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye. Using unsavoury language does not add to your argument. Examples would be referring to other people or groups as scumbags, crusties, sheeple, shills, trolls, traitors or saying that recently deceased people should “rot in hell” or similar. Repeated use of terms like that will result in a ban from the forum.
Thanks0 -
What do you think of the rational that investment funds want to make money on the loans and are able to make deals with people that for a variety of reasons the main banks cannot ? Are you going to analyze the reasons behind the comments or just resort to ad hominen attacks on Varadkar. Judging from his comments its good to see we have someone in charge that actually looks at the detail instead resorting to what ever slogan of the day is going. A shame he doesn't do this more often.
He's the poster boy for nothing slogans.
I'd explained the reasoning for my queries. I'm asking why Varadkar is promoting Irish banks selling off Irish debts to foreign vulture funds. What's in it for Irish society? I can't see any positives, can you?
Are you suggesting that business doing what business does is reason in itself? If not paying tax on profits, what's it to the Irish tax payer if a bank fares well from selling off a fellow tax payers debt to a vulture fund debt collector? Who does Varadkar represent in all this? The interests of private business or the interests of Irish society? His 'detail' seems to suggest he's more concerned about private profits and to a lesser extent the standing of the banks, over the welfare of the indebted householders/small business. That's my analysis as spelled out already, twice. Maybe you read his 'details' differently?Matt Barrett wrote: »...
My take away is that Varadkar like many of his brethren favours the fortunes of private business over those of the society they profess to represent. The only question is is this intentional and to what degree? It seems social crises won't steer them away from what ever their end game is.Matt Barrett wrote: »...For me this is a good example of what's wrong with Fine Gael and Varadkar, the Thatcher element to it all. Take under performing debts and sell them off to vulture funds. The banks selling getting a better rating, the vulture funds make a nice lightly taxed profit and, well the homeowner can be consigned to the 'GimmeGimmeGimme' group, that way when they need putting up in a hotel, we can yak about 'entitlement'....Are you going to analyze the reasons behind the comments or just resort to ad hominen attacks on Varadkar.
Can you elaborate on your take?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »He's the poster boy for nothing slogans.
I'd explained the reasoning for my queries. I'm asking why Varadkar is promoting Irish banks selling off Irish debts to foreign vulture funds. What's in it for Irish society? I can't see any positives, can you?
Are you suggesting that business doing what business does is reason in itself? If not paying tax on profits, what's it to the Irish tax payer if a bank fares well from selling off a fellow tax payers debt to a vulture fund debt collector? Who does Varadkar represent in all this? The interests of private business or the interests of Irish society? His 'detail' seems to suggest he's more concerned about private profits and to a lesser extent the standing of the banks, over the welfare of the indebted householders/small business. That's my analysis as spelled out already, twice. Maybe you read his 'details' differently?
Can you elaborate on your take?
The problem with your anaylsis/slogan is based on what you are saying I don't understand think you how Investment Funds work, the banking system in general works or the biggest down side to taking out a mortgage or any type of loan that uses security. I use the word Investment Fund because its a more accurate term for companies involved than the lazy term journalists use. On a more general note the media in general has done a very bad job at actually educating people on the issues involved. The word "vulture fund" being yet another example. Politicians don't help. However when you see the reaction Leo gets to making an intelligent and well thought out comment I can understand.
There are lots of positives for Irish banks clearing up their balance sheets. Selling loans off to Investment Funds helps with that. It also further crystalises any losses the banks have on their balance sheet. This makes it far easier for regulators to actually see how well set up a bank is for future crisis. Remember it was regulators that forced PTSB to get rid of their most recent batch of loans not the government.
In terms of upside to the general public. There are two very few upsides.
1.It frees up money that can be lent to new borrowers.
2.These mortgages that are not performing cost the bank and ultimately any person who uses the relevant banks money.
3. From a person who's loan is owned by an investment fund they may be far quicker to cut a deal than the main banks(Again given what you have said I don't think you read this part of Leo's speech). Ultimately they want to make money on what ever portfolio they buy and if its more profitable for them to cut a deal they more than likely will. For anyone who pays back their mortgage they have nothing to fear from an investment fund as that situation guarantees the fund a profit.
The most controversial aspect of these Investment Funds is that they don't have to worry about the political backlash for enforcing the security on the loans. However from my point of view I would consider this a good thing when done against people who won't pay versus people who can't. And I stress against people who choose not to engage or pay full stop.
The sad fact of life is that the whole point of a mortgage is that it is secured. If you are going to allow mortgages who are going to have family home repossessions as distasteful as that is. Irish mortgage rates are far higher than the Eurozone average which is what you would expect given how hard it is to repossess homes in Ireland. The Irish times quote recently that there were in region of 28,000 odd mortgages that have arrears beyond 2 year. Yet the number of house repossession was 151 for the first 3 quarters of last year. That's about half a percent. The changes of a person having their house repossessed is extremely low. Even the Strokestown case will take the guts of a decade to see the property repossessed even though the person in question has a history of defaulting and not just on credit received from banks.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/is-ireland-s-low-rate-of-repossession-the-reason-mortgage-rates-are-so-high-1.3737977
Even with Strokestown look at the reaction. KBC's had branches attacked which will do nothing to entice new entrants to the mortgage market and offer more and needed competition.
Nobody wants to see people loss their homes. However given the housing crisis we need a functioning mortgage market. As big a mess the government has made of the housing situation, effectively banning mortgages by preventing financial institutions enforcing their security would just ensure houses would be the preserve of the super wealthy in the long run. Which is not in society's interest.0 -
The problem with your anaylsis/slogan is based on what you are saying I don't understand think you how Investment Funds work, the banking system in general works or the biggest down side to taking out a mortgage or any type of loan that uses security. I use the word Investment Fund because its a more accurate term for companies involved than the lazy term journalists use. On a more general note the media in general has done a very bad job at actually educating people on the issues involved. The word "vulture fund" being yet another example. Politicians don't help. However when you see the reaction Leo gets to making an intelligent and well thought out comment I can understand.
There are lots of positives for Irish banks clearing up their balance sheets. Selling loans off to Investment Funds helps with that. It also further crystalises any losses the banks have on their balance sheet. This makes it far easier for regulators to actually see how well set up a bank is for future crisis. Remember it was regulators that forced PTSB to get rid of their most recent batch of loans not the government.
In terms of upside to the general public. There are two very few upsides.
1.It frees up money that can be lent to new borrowers.
2.These mortgages that are not performing cost the bank and ultimately any person who uses the relevant banks money.
3. From a person who's loan is owned by an investment fund they may be far quicker to cut a deal than the main banks(Again given what you have said I don't think you read this part of Leo's speech). Ultimately they want to make money on what ever portfolio they buy and if its more profitable for them to cut a deal they more than likely will. For anyone who pays back their mortgage they have nothing to fear from an investment fund as that situation guarantees the fund a profit.
The most controversial aspect of these Investment Funds is that they don't have to worry about the political backlash for enforcing the security on the loans. However from my point of view I would consider this a good thing when done against people who won't pay versus people who can't. And I stress against people who choose not to engage or pay full stop.
The sad fact of life is that the whole point of a mortgage is that it is secured. If you are going to allow mortgages who are going to have family home repossessions as distasteful as that is. Irish mortgage rates are far higher than the Eurozone average which is what you would expect given how hard it is to repossess homes in Ireland. The Irish times quote recently that there were in region of 28,000 odd mortgages that have arrears beyond 2 year. Yet the number of house repossession was 151 for the first 3 quarters of last year. That's about half a percent. The changes of a person having their house repossessed is extremely low. Even the Strokestown case will take the guts of a decade to see the property repossessed even though the person in question has a history of defaulting and not just on credit received from banks.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/is-ireland-s-low-rate-of-repossession-the-reason-mortgage-rates-are-so-high-1.3737977
Even with Strokestown look at the reaction. KBC's had branches attacked which will do nothing to entice new entrants to the mortgage market and offer more and needed competition.
The term vulture fund suits a venture profiting off the hardship of others IMO. I wasn't the one commented on that by the way.
I've been asking as I don't see any societal positives.
When you look at the likes of AIB not paying tax on profits and the banks willingness to sell on your contract to private vulture funds, what benefit is any use of these groups to the tax payer unless you profit directly from a bank as a shareholder or some such? As regards regulators/government, it's Varadkar praising them in the article cited and my subsequent queries regarding his stance. I don't think anybody expects private business to take a loss for the betterment of society. I also don't believe private or even banking profits will lead to a better deal for the tax payer. Where this thinking falls short is it relies on the myth that private/corporate profits directly improve the lot of the average tax payer. At best marginally.
Vulture funds may be far quicker to cut a deal, but do we know this will be a good deal? No. The person or business would not have the same recourse when dealing with vulture fund groups.Nobody wants to see people loss their homes. However given the housing crisis we need a functioning mortgage market. As big a mess the government has made of the housing situation, effectively banning mortgages by preventing financial institutions enforcing their security would just ensure houses would be the preserve of the super wealthy in the long run. Which is not in society's interest.
Vulture funds are driving the housing crisis IMO. From buying up properties as rentals to doing some manner of a deal with indebted home owners, who have to go somewhere, to buying properties.
What's good for business is the continuation of the housing crisis. The vulture funds are named so because they operate and flourish on the loss and misery of others. Varadkar should not be applauding them as a preferable model over our own bailed out and part owned banks, for what they are they are in the least more accountable to the state.
A point comes where what's good for business isn't good for society and relying and encouraging vulture funds to gouge people in crisis is not what Varadkar should be doing. That's the Thatcher element, or CEO as he might say.
Is the idea that the banks and regulators have no other recourse for bad loans or just that theres more quick money in selling on? Also is it the case that the tax payer will be subsidising rents or paying for hotels for any who avail of these quicker vulture fund deals?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »The term vulture fund suits a venture profiting off the hardship of others IMO. I wasn't the one commented on that by the way.
I've been asking as I don't see any societal positives.
When you look at the likes of AIB not paying tax on profits and the banks willingness to sell on your contract to private vulture funds, what benefit is any use of these groups to the tax payer unless you profit directly from a bank as a shareholder or some such? As regards regulators/government, it's Varadkar praising them in the article cited and my subsequent queries regarding his stance. I don't think anybody expects private business to take a loss for the betterment of society. I also don't believe private or even banking profits will lead to a better deal for the tax payer. Where this thinking falls short is it relies on the myth that private/corporate profits directly improve the lot of the average tax payer. At best marginally.
Vulture funds may be far quicker to cut a deal, but do we know this will be a good deal? No. The person or business would not have the same recourse when dealing with vulture fund groups.
Vulture funds are driving the housing crisis IMO. From buying up properties as rentals to doing some manner of a deal with indebted home owners, who have to go somewhere, to buying properties.
What's good for business is the continuation of the housing crisis. The vulture funds are named so because they operate and flourish on the loss and misery of others. Varadkar should not be applauding them as a preferable model over our own bailed out and part owned banks, for what they are they are in the least more accountable to the state.
A point comes where what's good for business isn't good for society and relying and encouraging vulture funds to gouge people in crisis is not what Varadkar should be doing. That's the Thatcher element, or CEO as he might say.
Is the idea that the banks and regulators have no other recourse for bad loans or just that theirs more quick money in selling on? Also is it the case that the tax payer will be subsidising rents or paying for hotels for any who avail of these quicker vulture fund deals?
The vulture funds themselves usually have no interest in renting property, any evidence of one that has ?
Secondly without these funds off the banks, builders and home buyers wouldnt be able to get loans to build and buy houses. I know the papers got yee all rialled up about investment banks buying bad debts (and they were all bad debts, the banks arent selling performing loans, only ones they should never have made or the severely delinquent ones)
'Vulture' funds are flipping properties back to the market for people who can afford them to buy and are freeing up the loan book at the banks to allow them to lend more, unless youre a tenant with a sh*t landlord or somebody who doesnt believe they should have to pay a mortgage then the 'vulture' funds are doing you a service.0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »The vulture funds themselves usually have no interest in renting property, any evidence of one that has ?
Secondly without these funds off the banks, builders and home buyers wouldnt be able to get loans to build and buy houses. I know the papers got yee all rialled up about investment banks buying bad debts (and they were all bad debts, the banks arent selling performing loans, only ones they should never have made or the severely delinquent ones)
'Vulture' funds are flipping properties back to the market for people who can afford them to buy and are freeing up the loan book at the banks to allow them to lend more, unless youre a tenant with a sh*t landlord or somebody who doesnt believe they should have to pay a mortgage then the 'vulture' funds are doing you a service.
I was including investment companies buying up properties to use as rentals, often to the state or LA's. Are vulture funds only reselling to single families on a case by case?Investors with €5bn to spend eye up Irish rental sectorInternational investors with €5 billion are now targeting the Irish rental sector a new report suggests, which points to “considerable interest” from European, Canadian, UK and US investors.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/investors-with-5bn-to-spend-eye-up-irish-rental-sector-1.3631671
The Irish housing market is not reliant on vulture funds to function. If people can't afford the price prices would need to come down. The state would need address it be it on adjusting rates and taxation or providing affordable housing.
Vulture funds are symptoms of the disease not the cure. They profit off crisis. If people were availing of mortgages they could afford and rentals were based on actual income we wouldn't need emergency accommodation, rent subsidies and varying grants for all but a small few. The use of vulture funds is not with a view to helping the tax payer out of crisis, but about profiting during one. Varadkar has no business applauding them.
Basically, it'll all come back to the tax payer to bear the burden of private profits, as per. But sure we can blame it all on the five euro Christmas bonus.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Making it a us verses them, which ever side we believe ourselves to be on, is too simplistic. I would however make it an Irish society verses the interests of foreign vulture funds and query as to why Varadkar seems to have faith that these vulture funds will treat indebted householders well, or in the least as well as a previously tax payer bailed out bank beholden to the state to some degree?
Varadkar is essentially promoting and backing Irish banking institutions in the selling of loans to foreign interest debt collectors.
For me this is a good example of what's wrong with Fine Gael and Varadkar, the Thatcher element to it all. Take under performing debts and sell them off to vulture funds. The banks selling getting a better rating, the vulture funds make a nice lightly taxed profit and, well the homeowner can be consigned to the 'GimmeGimmeGimme' group, that way when they need putting up in a hotel, we can yak about 'entitlement'.
The logic of this post is extremely difficult to follow.
First, we are told not to indulge in an us versus them debate. Then the rest of the post consists of an everybody against Varadkar argument. I can't reconcile these two contradictory and opposite views.
This post also displays a lack of understanding of why the banks are selling off mortgage loans (hint: it is related to ECB requirements for sustainable banks) and a failure to comprehend why vulture funds are happy to do deals with borrowers (hint: they have got the loans at a discount and don't need the full value and don't want to waste years of administration on dealing with the loans) and why this is actually not bad for any half-decent borrower. It does leave the likes of the Strokestown fella and any other complete chancer in a bit of bother, but anyone willing to make a half-decent attempt to pay should do all right, but hey, any chance to have a go at Varadkar?0 -
Advertisement
-
The logic of this post is extremely difficult to follow.
First, we are told not to indulge in an us versus them debate. Then the rest of the post consists of an everybody against Varadkar argument. I can't reconcile these two contradictory and opposite views.
This post also displays a lack of understanding of why the banks are selling off mortgage loans (hint: it is related to ECB requirements for sustainable banks) and a failure to comprehend why vulture funds are happy to do deals with borrowers (hint: they have got the loans at a discount and don't need the full value and don't want to waste years of administration on dealing with the loans) and why this is actually not bad for any half-decent borrower. It does leave the likes of the Strokestown fella and any other complete chancer in a bit of bother, but anyone willing to make a half-decent attempt to pay should do all right, but hey, any chance to have a go at Varadkar?
I'd agree to a point.
But the former Govt put agreements in place regarding how banks had to deal with their debtors, the fact that the banks can just offload these debts renders that piece as just window dressing now.
Vulture funds are buying these loans at huge discounts, thus piggybacking on the losses the banks made which are being paid for by the taxpayer of Ireland, thus making a mockery of the whole purpose of recouping these debts.
The vultures are making profits that could be being made for the taxpayer through the banks themselves engaging with their debtors in the same way as the vultures, ala repossessions and sale.
It s the fact that its the vultures that are profiting instead of the taxpayer getting back something out of this that vexes me.0 -
I'd agree to a point.
But the former Govt put agreements in place regarding how banks had to deal with their debtors, the fact that the banks can just offload these debts renders that piece as just window dressing now.
Vulture funds are buying these loans at huge discounts, thus piggybacking on the losses the banks made which are being paid for by the taxpayer of Ireland, thus making a mockery of the whole purpose of recouping these debts.
The vultures are making profits that could be being made for the taxpayer through the banks themselves engaging with their debtors in the same way as the vultures, ala repossessions and sale.
It s the fact that its the vultures that are profiting instead of the taxpayer getting back something out of this that vexes me.
For me it's the potential lack of recourse for those whose loans are sold on coupled with outside, lightly taxed entities profiting off of a market in crisis, while our CEO applauds.0 -
The problem that the likes of AIB have is that if it was themselves who were evicting those with delinquent mortgages you would no doubt be assailing the "state-owned bank for putting people out on the streets". The so-called vulture funds allow the bank to otherwise remove these non-performing loans from their books.
It is far from an ideal set-up but any properly functioning mortgage system will have a certain percentage of foreclosures and if we refuse to accept that then we put the banks themselves in an awkward position.0 -
The problem that the likes of AIB have is that if it was themselves who were evicting those with delinquent mortgages you would no doubt be assailing the "state-owned bank for putting people out on the streets". The so-called vulture funds allow the bank to otherwise remove these non-performing loans from their books.
It is far from an ideal set-up but any properly functioning mortgage system will have a certain percentage of foreclosures and if we refuse to accept that then we put the banks themselves in an awkward position.
The protection of the tax payer should be paramount. My concerns are about the individual and small business person going from dealing with Irish banks the state has holdings in to dealing with Vulture Funds who's only concern is profit. In the least the banks, due to political pressure, would need to be seen to have a sense of fairness towards the Irish economy and tax payer. The idea that they are being encouraged to off load indebted Irish tax payers to private vulture funds under the alleged hopes this will all trickle back to the same tax payers in some form is a farce and Varadkar shouldn't be applauding the practice.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »The protection of the tax payer should be paramount. My concerns are about the individual and small business person going from dealing with Irish banks the state has holdings in to dealing with Vulture Funds who's only concern is profit. In the least the banks, due to political pressure, would need to be seen to have a sense of fairness towards the Irish economy and tax payer. The idea that they are being encouraged to off load indebted Irish tax payers to private vulture funds under the alleged hopes this will all trickle back to the same tax payers in some form is a farce and Varadkar shouldn't be applauding the practice.
Given the public outcry over the evictions of people who are years in arrears, I'm fairly certain that AIB have zero interest in getting involved in it. I am under no illusions that any of this will "trickle" back to the Irish taxpayer. What does happen is that the vulture funds at least pay something for the bad debts. Something that is more than the nothing most of the mortgage holders are paying.
This was in fact Varadkar's point. He never mentioned anything about the money somehow trickling back. The investment funds pay up front, taking bad debts off the government banks and realising some measure of value without the banks having to go through the increasingly difficult prospect of evictions.0 -
Given the public outcry over the evictions of people who are years in arrears, I'm fairly certain that AIB have zero interest in getting involved in it. I am under no illusions that any of this will "trickle" back to the Irish taxpayer. What does happen is that the vulture funds at least pay something for the bad debts. Something that is more than the nothing most of the mortgage holders are paying.
This was in fact Varadkar's point. He never mentioned anything about the money somehow trickling back. The investment funds pay up front, taking bad debts off the government banks and realising some measure of value without the banks having to go through the increasingly difficult prospect of evictions.
This is not about allowing people to simply stop paying their bills. And what manner under which people are physically removed from property and by who is a different discussion.
So what if the vulture funds pay something?
It's better for us if the banks seek resolution, manufacture payment structure, seek state aid if needs be. It's the tax payer who loses out for Vulture Fund profits and the tax payer who picks up the financial slack in rental aid, accommodation emergency or otherwise.
Curating an environment were vulture funds profit from tax payers losses is not ideal and Varadkar shouldn't be applauding it like these funds are doing us a favour. There are people behind these loans and a market in crisis suffering the effects of their presence.
How about the state buys up these bad loans or sets up some form of NAMA, (but a transparent accountable one with no sweet deals or inappropriate behaviour) for the indebted tax payer? Genuinely can't meet payments the state will bail you out, not for free, you pay what you can until things improve? Madness right? A better deal for the tax payer than writing off debts, or selling at a loss to private concerns IMO.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »This is not about allowing people to simply stop paying their bills. And what manner under which people are physically removed from property and by who is a different discussion.
So what if the vulture funds pay something?
It's better for us if the banks seek resolution, manufacture payment structure, seek state aid if needs be. It's the tax payer who loses out for Vulture Fund profits and the tax payer who picks up the financial slack in rental aid, accommodation emergency or otherwise.
Curating an environment were vulture funds profit from tax payers losses is not ideal and Varadkar shouldn't be applauding it like these funds are doing us a favour. There are people behind these loans and a market in crisis suffering the effects of their presence.
How about the state buys up these bad loans or sets up some form of NAMA, (but a transparent accountable one with no sweet deals or inappropriate behaviour) for the indebted tax payer? Genuinely can't meet payments the state will bail you out, not for free, you pay what you can until things improve? Madness right? A better deal for the tax payer than writing off debts, or selling at a loss to private concerns IMO.
The banks do seek resolution and adjust payment structures but it is not always successful. Selling off non-performing loans is not an uncommon practice and doing so can, in fact, be beneficial for the tax payer given it can be beneficial for the bank. Now, it may not be beneficial for the particular tax payer who gets evicted but that is a different story.
He is not suggesting they are "doing us a favour" and characterising it as such is disingenuous. He said they are better at writing down debts or to quote him directly:“But you’ll know from the numbers that they’re often better at write-downs of loans than our own banks.
Now, he may well be lying or mistaken but do you have any proof of that?
As far as the banks are concerned these investment/vulture funds are simply providing a service. The bank gets money upfront and doesn't have to deal with the hassle of trying to recoup the bad debt itself. Whether more regulation is needed or whether changes are required in certain areas is a legitimate point of discussion (nothing is perfect after all) but specifically what Varadkar was saying, and what you appear to have such an issue with, is that funds that purchase non-performing loans are essentially a part of the financial ecosystem. Banks have rules and can not keep all these non-performing loans on their books ad infinitum without causing all of us problem.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »It's better for us if the banks... seek state aid if needs be. It's the tax payer who loses out for Vulture Fund profits...
So your concern is for the welfare of the taxpayer, but you think that banks should get bailed out by the taxpayer instead of selling off non-performing loans?0 -
The banks do seek resolution and adjust payment structures but it is not always successful. Selling off non-performing loans is not an uncommon practice and doing so can, in fact, be beneficial for the tax payer given it can be beneficial for the bank. Now, it may not be beneficial for the particular tax payer who gets evicted but that is a different story.
He is not suggesting they are "doing us a favour" and characterising it as such is disingenuous. He said they are better at writing down debts or to quote him directly:
Now, he may well be lying or mistaken but do you have any proof of that?
As far as the banks are concerned these investment/vulture funds are simply providing a service. The bank gets money upfront and doesn't have to deal with the hassle of trying to recoup the bad debt itself. Whether more regulation is needed or whether changes are required in certain areas is a legitimate point of discussion (nothing is perfect after all) but specifically what Varadkar was saying, and what you appear to have such an issue with, is that funds that purchase non-performing loans are essentially a part of the financial ecosystem. Banks have rules and can not keep all these non-performing loans on their books ad infinitum without causing all of us problem.
It's one way or the other.
He's either complimenting Vulture Funds for being more effective than banks and suggesting it's the better way to go or he isn't. If this practice isn't good for us why is he talking it up? Suggesting he's saying they are doing us a favour is a valid comment IMO.
It's unlikely he's lying, never suggested he was. Maybe they are better at write downs, again, so what, if the tax payer is losing out on the sale be it individually, through the banks losses or the effect it has on the housing market?
The idea that Vultures are providing a service is not in dispute. It's the quality of that service as it relates to the Irish tax payer and should the leader of the country be talking them up that's in question.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »It's one way or the other.
He's either complimenting Vulture Funds for being more effective than banks and suggesting it's the better way to go or he isn't. If this practice isn't good for us whys he talking it up? Suggesting he's saying they are doing us a favour is a valid comment IMO.
It's unlikely he's lying, ever suggested he was. Maybe they are better at write downs, again, so what, if the tax payer is losing out on the sale be it individually, through the banks losses or the effect it has on the housing market?
The idea that Vultures are providing a service is not in dispute. It's the quality of that service as it relates to the Irish tax payer and should the leader of the country be talking them up that's in question.
They are doing us a favour about as much as Tesco do you a favour when you buy some bread. They are performing a function and their ability to perform that function was highlighted.
You need to get over the idea that the tax payer is somehow losing out. These are non-performing loans - the banks are not receiving any money for them. Someone offering to pay to take on these loans is improving the liquidity of the banks and taking on a lot of hassle in the process, hence why they get them at a discount. You pay a premium to offload risk.0
Advertisement