Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

runawaybishop

runawaybishop wrote: »

Couldnt care less. This isn't a thread about AIB.

What do you mean 'you couldn't care less'? Some posters are saying the actions of this person are making their mortgages more expensive. The banks activity pre the crash doesn't matter at all then?

FredFunk

Boggles wrote: »

AIB have a tax liability of 3 billion, which they don't have to pay back for 30 years. Should someone lose some teeth?

I imagine all the people on her foaming at the mouth at a liability of 400k just dropped dead.

They engaged, they are paying back. Their lending practices is for another thread.
There doesn't seem to be any record of engagement from this debtor to either the state or the bank.

ohnonotgmail

FredFunk wrote: »

And risk being threatened by the mob? no chance. FB is a no go territory for anybody with common sense and willing to read all the facts.

I had to unfriend somebody on FB last night because they kept posting about these chancers.

Fann Linn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Small?

In contrast to AIB, yes.

eagle eye

EagererBeaver wrote:

A boyo in Roscommon being lawfully evicted from his home for being, well, a thieving ****, is in no way related to the state policy on immigration. To attempt to connect the two is undoubtedly racist. You therefore, are a racist. Pretty ****ing simple to be honest.

As far as I'm aware racism is having the view that another race of people are less important than you. I didn't see that anywhere in his post.

ohnonotgmail

Fann Linn wrote: »

In contrast to AIB, yes.

Well as comparisons go that one is pretty useless. And irrelevant.

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

lads ye all get one vote, regardless of how many boards accounts ye have. the results each election cycle make for cold reading for ye. wise up and take a hint, ye frankly struggle in a scary and confusing modern world and probably deserve pity but maybe lay off the hateful rhetoric it puts ye in very ugly company historically

I'd call this racist, you are telling people here that they are not the same as you but a lesser human.

Maewyn Succat

Mrsmum wrote: »

He might when his back is to the wall. Some people are like that. But say you're right. Better to put them out in July.

July 2005 would have been the right time to evict him.

eagle eye

blueythebear wrote:

if this is the way rural Ireland thinks, then I for one welcome a rural / urban divide.

Discrimination bordering in racism.

runawaybishop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What do you mean 'you couldn't care less'? Some posters are saying the actions of this person are making their mortgages more expensive. The banks activity pre the crash doesn't matter at all then?

What about that thing over there, look!

gnf_ireland

Deleted User wrote: »

If they arent punished or made lend responsibly it increased the number of evictions needed - but the banks will always have the law on their side

I absolutely agree with responsible lending? What constitutes responsible lending - I am guessing 80-90% LTV and 3.5 times Income according to the central bank rules. Pop over to the Accommodation forum and see all the discussion on how to avail of exemptions ?

Absolutely, the banks have legacy issues that need to be dealt with as part of the celtic tiger bust a decade ago. But it was a decade ago at this stage, and the banks and government have been busy kicking the can down the road since then.

This farmer is not a poster boy for anyone. Quite frankly his attitude to repaying money he borrowed is shocking. I would go so far as to say he has contempt for everyone and anyone and believes the world owes him a living. If he engaged with the bank (never mind the revenue) it should never have gone this far.

There are easy ways to get around this, and non-resource lending is not the answer. Any business loan (and that includes farming), needs to ensure the primary residence and land/business are fully separated by folio, and security is on the business asset only. Maximum loan value capped at 60% the average asset price over the last 5 years and capped at 3.5 times the average business net profit/grant payments for the last 5 years.
If land held in the family for more than 1 generation is too toxic to repossess, then it should not be possible to use it as security.

The problem, rightly or wrongly, here is that this level of publicity is going to make it more and more difficult for farmers to get larger loans and in the event they do, the interest rate will be higher due to the risk associated with them.

While i understand the anger, there are many more deserving candidates of peoples support than this farmer. This reminds me of Brian O'Donnell or the Kelly's in Killiney who had a large property portfolio but had not paid anything against their 2m mortgage for years !!

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/deluded-odonnells-owe-71m-but-want-to-keep-mansion-31035382.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/evicted-pair-own-large-property-portfolio-1.504782

Ipso

Ipso wrote: »

Probably the same people complaining about high interest rates.

you know what causes high interest rates? Poor lending practices. You know what perpetuates poor lending practices? Bailouts. You know what increases evictions - poor lending practices.

KBC was bailed out by the Belgians and pumped money into its loss making Irish arm because nearly 50% of their lending was piss poor.

In the long run bailouts perpetuate bailouts too. That`s why the banks must take a cut too.

Hardly whataboutery. Its highly relevant.

runawaybishop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

you know what causes high interest rates? Poor lending practices. You know what perpetuates poor lending practices? Bailouts. You know what increases evictions - poor lending practices.

KBC was bailed out by the Belgians and pumped money into its loss making Irish arm because nearly 50% of their lending was piss poor.

In the long run bailouts perpetuate bailouts too. That`s why the banks must take a cut too.

Hardly whataboutery. Its highly relevant.

But those bankers something something.

It's irrelevant, the lad has debts all over the place. What, exactly, do lending practices have to do with him evading the taxman?

eagle eye

runawaybishop wrote:

The ‘local’ criminals include a CAB target who is originally from Sligo, as well as a notorious crime family operating in north Roscommon.

Mir
E rubbish being fed to the I'd guess. Last night there were over 100 people down there and the large majority if them have never been in trouble in their lives.

Fann Linn wrote:

Dail to discuss amendment to bill with regard to having security firms licensed when dealing with court orders and evictions.

Maybe something positive will come out if this. I won't hold my breath though, might just be worded that way to try and quieten things.

Edgware wrote:

All aboard the Sinn Fein bandwagon. Thankfully some party is against the use of masked men with weapons attacking people and taking the law into their own hands

Well they supported masked men for quite a long time.

cursai

runawaybishop wrote: »

But those bankers something something.

It's irrelevant, the lad has debts all over the place. What, exactly, do lending practices have to do with him evading the taxman?

Debts + half life 3 + EVIL Corp + scroungers = 9/11

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

you know what causes high interest rates? Poor lending practices. You know what perpetuates poor lending practices? Bailouts. You know what increases evictions - poor lending practices.

KBC was bailed out by the Belgians and pumped money into its loss making Irish arm because nearly 50% of their lending was piss poor.

In the long run bailouts perpetuate bailouts too. That`s why the banks must take a cut too.

The thing is though that they didn't lend that poorly in this case. They lent to someone who had a large asset as collateral and under the laws of the land at the time of the loan that asset could be seized in the event of non payment.

It's only poor lending if we retrospectively change our laws and our customs to say that the loan was not in fact secured on the land as previously represented.

The bank will take a cut. It is the outstanding amount plus interest plus costs of repossession, minus the amount the land brings in after sale. If there is a surplus, it will be refunded to the borrowers.

awec

[Deleted User] wrote: »

you know what causes high interest rates? Poor lending practices. You know what perpetuates poor lending practices? Bailouts. You know what increases evictions - poor lending practices.

KBC was bailed out by the Belgians and pumped money into its loss making Irish arm because nearly 50% of their lending was piss poor.

In the long run bailouts perpetuate bailouts too. That`s why the banks must take a cut too.

Hardly whataboutery. Its highly relevant.

What do you propose? Everyone’s mortgage and tax liability forgiven?

Or just those who deliberately cheat the system?

The argument that we can just ignore all financial liabilities cause we bailed out the banks is pretty fcuking dumb.

awec

awec wrote: »

What do you propose? Everyone’s mortgage and tax liability forgiven?

Or just those who deliberately cheat the system?

The argument that we can just ignore all financial liabilities cause we bailed out the banks is pretty fcuking dumb.

If you read the thread you`d see that i agree that is pretty fcuking dumb

gnf_ireland

Deleted User wrote: »

Some posters are saying the actions of this person are making their mortgages more expensive. The banks activity pre the crash doesn't matter at all then?

Just to be clear, both statements have an impact on the mortgage rates in Ireland, and along with a few other behaviours is why we will never see european level interest rates in Ireland. We simply want to have our cake and eat it when it comes to mortgages

1. The cost & duration of enforcing security on a mortgage (secured loan) is exceptionally high in Ireland. This includes legal costs, as well as other costs. These costs are borne directly by the rest of the banks customers. The same applies to the cost of bad debt - there is a risk factor priced into the interest rate to cover any bad debt.

2. The banks have to maintain a level of Capital Adequacy as per agreement from the ECB. This is based on historic experience. A German mortgage is given a 15% weighting whereas a new Irish mortgage has a weighting of 40% (some old Irish mortgages are weighted over 80%). This means the bank has to hold more funds for the mortgages they issue, and this directly impacts their return on equity. Lower return means lower profits

3. Other factors include
(a) we like to avail of cashback in our mortgages which skews interest rates
(b) we don't want to pay arrangement fees for our mortgages like most of Europe
(c) we feel a 10% deposit is high, whereas large chunks of Europe have ~40% deposits

In most of Europe, if you are behind in your mortgage for >6 months, your property is repossessed. In Ireland, if you pay nothing for 10 years you may end up in court, and eventually have an eviction notice served that you then fight on the doorstep.

gctest50

[Deleted User] wrote: »

.......

Hardly whataboutery. Its highly relevant.

What reason could he have for under declaring VAT ?

And then ignoring it so much until he was fined

gctest50

gctest50 wrote: »

What reason could he have for under declaring VAT ?

And then ignoring it so much until he was fined

And still ignored it!

markodaly

STB. wrote: »

ccount.

This government have run this country into the ground. The infrastructure is creaking. Transport, Health and Housing. Key components of society. The levels of personal debt enforced on working people through bailouts will remain with us for a long time.

Aw cop on will ya.

Why are people such snowflakes today?
Almost full employment, pubs and restaurants raking it in, very strong retail sales in the run up to Christmas, yet people are never happy.

The problems in the country stem from the fact there is a cohort of Irish people who are simply retarded, who moan and whinge when debt collectors come calling when money they borrowed goes up in smoke.

We have massive cultural issues in the country, that stops us solving those big issues you mention.

Housing for example. People moan about the terrible plight on young renters and homeless, but they won't be too far long objecting to every bit of development that goes over 3 stories because that is 'high rise'

They also want to build a McMansion in some field in the middle of nowhere, yet decry the death of the towns and villages, when of course they don't' themselves choose to live or shop there.

They will decry any property tax the government will impose on them, stating that its an illegal tax or immoral tax or something.
Lets not even talk about water.

We as a nation are riven with utter stupidity and hypocrisy which prevents us being a grown-up nation, where we look and analyse issues in a grown-up fashion.

gnf_ireland

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The thing is though that they didn't lend that poorly in this case. They lent to someone who had a large asset as collateral and under the laws of the land at the time of the loan that asset could be seized in the event of non payment.

It's only poor lending if we retrospectively change our laws and our customs to say that the loan was not in fact secured on the land as previously represented.

The bank will take a cut. It is the outstanding amount plus interest plus costs of repossession, minus the amount the land brings in after sale. If there is a surplus, it will be refunded to the borrowers.

In this case the bank has taken a cut - KBC has sold the debt to Caboot at no doubt a fraction of its original value. KBC clearly do not want to get directly involved in repossessions, and let others try and get what they can from the person.

I 100% agree with better lending practices - but this would mean less loans and higher interest rates. But more importantly it means higher deposits - so instead of 10-20% for mortgages, it would become 25-40%. Whose interest would that be in? Landlords no doubt, and they are all well behaving fellows ...

The choices are relatively simple when it comes to lending
(a) higher deposits so risk is reduced OR
(b) ability to quickly and efficiently claim security against a loan

If neither of these happen, interest rates will rise !

markodaly

gandalf wrote: »

Serious question here. Given the back story and mob behaviour after the eviction do you think banks are any more likely to deal with bad debtors like Mr McGann themselves or to sell those debts off to vulture funds and let them deal with them.

Up until this I found the idea of vulture funds buying up distressed loans wrong but this whole situation in Strokestown is leading me to reevaluate that feeling. If you have someone who drew down a loan and didn't bother to repay anything off it for 14 years then I think the bank is well within their rights to sell the loan off to another company to recover some of their investment.

That is an excellent point.

The same people who complain about evictions will, of course, complain about vulture funds.

Yet they are too stupid to join the dots and see that almost 10 years after the crash, banks HAVE TO sell off bad loans to these funds because it's almost impossible to evict and regain the collateral tied against the loan.

johnnyskeleton

Boggles wrote: »

AIB have a tax liability of 3 billion, which they don't have to pay back for 30 years. Should someone lose some teeth?

This isn't accurate. They can write off their €3bn loss from the crash over the course of the next 25/30 years profits. Now, whether they should be able to in light of the fact that they were given state money as a bailout is a valid argument. But they are doing no more than what other businesses are entitled to do by writing off previous years' losses.

Danzy

When did FG become so concerned about fiscal probity and the rule of law?

gnf_ireland

gnf_ireland wrote: »

In this case the bank has taken a cut - KBC has sold the debt to Caboot at no doubt a fraction of its original value. KBC clearly do not want to get directly involved in repossessions, and let others try and get what they can from the person.

I 100% agree with better lending practices - but this would mean less loans and higher interest rates. But more importantly it means higher deposits - so instead of 10-20% for mortgages, it would become 25-40%. Whose interest would that be in? Landlords no doubt, and they are all well behaving fellows ...

The choices are relatively simple when it comes to lending
(a) higher deposits so risk is reduced OR
(b) ability to quickly and efficiently claim security against a loan

If neither of these happen, interest rates will rise !

Better vetting reduces the risk (i.e the banks actually doing their job), we did have better lending practices prior to the bubble and ultra low interest rates. A long term view needs to be taken, not just a short term one.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

AIB have a tax liability of 3 billion, which they don't have to pay back for 30 years. Should someone lose some teeth?

I imagine all the people on her foaming at the mouth at a liability of 400k just dropped dead.

AIB have a deferred tax asset of 3 billion - they don't owe any tax.

The asset is the tax rate multiplied by their losses carried forward. Once they have made enough profit to have used up all the losses carried forward they will be paying tax again.

Practically if we made them write that tax asset off today we would probably have to put more capital in to cover that loss. Actual cash spent today vs future cash not collected.

gnf_ireland

markodaly wrote: »

We as a nation are riven with utter stupidity and hypocrisy which prevents us being a grown-up nation, where we look and analyse issues in a grown-up fashion.

Absolutely agree that as a nation we seem to be unable to have a grown up debate on important matters, and look beyond the fact the local politician fixed the road 5 years ago

And all of the above is not helped by the exceptionally short term views of politicians, even before we look at the candidates who run for office..

Take our pension crises as an example. It is an absolute ticking time bomb (like every other country in the western world), but we simply put our heads in the sand and it will go away. Keep increasing the current state pension, despite the fact that it will be completely unaffordable within a decade or two and the ponzi scheme will all come crashing down... Instead we discuss blasphemy

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

AIB have a tax liability of 3 billion, which they don't have to pay back for 30 years. Should someone lose some teeth?

I imagine all the people on her foaming at the mouth at a liability of 400k just dropped dead.