Poor Me, Poor Me... Vulture Funds etc...

Wtf ?

Rather than just rant I decided to dig deep....The figures were published so having not a lot more to do I had a look.
Most of the mortgage holders (97%) were over 4 years in arrears and all of them were not talking (Engaging etc) with the lender. **** away the letters, Ostrich head in the sand, Hoping the state will do a mass wipeout ( Think of the children etc) when most have the money but taking a punt.
Let the vultures at them..... **** em... Dont **** us all over.

Hal3000

Wtf ? wrote: »

Rather than just rant I decided to dig deep....The figures were published so having not a lot more to do I had a look.
Most of the mortgage holders (97%) were over 4 years in arrears and all of them were not talking turkey in anyway with the lender. **** away the letters, Ostrich head in the sand, Hoping the state will do a mass wipeout ( Think of the children etc) when most have the money but taking a punt.
Let the vultures at them.....

And how are you with the banks being bailed out when they had no money?

Wtf ?

Hal3000 wrote: »

And how are you with the banks being bailed out when they had no money?

Thats that argument out of the way, first post...phew. First guilty punter, watch...

amcalester

Hal3000 wrote: »

And how are you with the banks being bailed out when they had no money?

One doesn’t excuse the other.

Hal3000

amcalester wrote: »

One doesn’t excuse the other.

True, but the tax payer wasn't able to reposess banks. We just had to bail them out.

amcalester

Hal3000 wrote: »

True, but the tax payer wasn't able to reposess banks. We just had to bail them out.

We took ownership of the banks too.

Hal3000

amcalester wrote: »

We took ownership of the banks too.

By we you mean the Government of Ireland. Last time I checked I don't have any ownership of any of the banks, but my taxes paid for it.

amcalester

Hal3000 wrote: »

By we you mean the Government of Ireland. Last time I checked I don't have any ownership of any of the banks, but my taxes paid for it.

No, by we I mean the people of Ireland. The Government merely act on our behalf, ownership rests with the state i.e. the people.

ILoveYourVibes

Wtf ? wrote: »

Rather than just rant I decided to dig deep....The figures were published so having not a lot more to do I had a look.
Most of the mortgage holders (97%) were over 4 years in arrears and all of them were not talking (Engaging etc) with the lender. **** away the letters, Ostrich head in the sand, Hoping the state will do a mass wipeout ( Think of the children etc) when most have the money but taking a punt.
Let the vultures at them..... **** em... Dont **** us all over.

Do you know what a multinational vulture fund is? Do you know their business practices?

How are we supposed to regulate them for risk assessment?

Do you know how many more homeless that could create?

ILoveYourVibes

amcalester wrote: »

We took ownership of the banks too.

Doesn't matter. They were valueless.


It was vulture funds that got the mortgages and properties for less than half their actual value. Most of these vulture funds are multinational so its not us that owns them at all.

Sheeps

Vulture funds shouldn't be allowed operate. The banks should be addressing their arrears in the courts, and schemes like the mortgage to let schemes should be given full state backing. The answer to mortgage arrears isn't more homelessness.

Cee-Jay-Cee

amcalester wrote: »

No, by we I mean the people of Ireland. The Government merely act on our behalf, ownership rests with the state i.e. the people.

But we, the people, do NOT benefit in anyway from the state owning or part owning the banks. Bankers and government ministers benefit, vulture funds benefit, developers who made millions, lost millions and had that debt written off, benefitted. We the people got fúck all.

amcalester

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

But we, the people, do NOT benefit in anyway from the state owning or part owning the banks. Bankers and government ministers benefit, vulture funds benefit, developers who made millions, lost millions and had that debt written off, benefitted. We the people got fúck all.

I’m not arguing that it was the right thing to do, it r that it benefited the taxpayer just that the taxpayer did “repossess” the banks.

ted1

Hal3000 wrote: »

And how are you with the banks being bailed out when they had no money?

So no one should bother paying their mortgage?

namloc1980

Sheeps wrote: »

Vulture funds shouldn't be allowed operate. The banks should be addressing their arrears in the courts, and schemes like the mortgage to let schemes should be given full state backing. The answer to mortgage arrears isn't more homelessness.

Just let people not bother paying then is it?

Fol20

amcalester wrote: »

One doesn’t excuse the other.

Didn’t your parents teach you two wrongs don’t make a right.

Wheety

It needs to be easier for Banks to remove non payers of mortgages and sell it onto the next family who will pay.

As it is, it's a never ending battle with no chance of recovering the money so they sell it off cheaply to these funds who will spend the time and effort trying to remove non payers as it's worth their while because they got the mortgages cheaper.

ILoveYourVibes

namloc1980 wrote: »

Just let people not bother paying then is it?

You dont have to be personally insolvent for a vulture fund to be able to buy your mortgage. You can have been always totally up to date on every payment.

Wheety

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You dont have to be personally insolvent for a vulture fund to be able to buy your mortgage. You can have been always totally up to date on every payment.

I can't imagine banks are selling off up to date, performing loans? Why would you?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Sheeps wrote: »

Vulture funds shouldn't be allowed operate. The banks should be addressing their arrears in the courts, and schemes like the mortgage to let schemes should be given full state backing. The answer to mortgage arrears isn't more homelessness.

It's downsizing or relocation. That's how simple it is.

I, like many others, saved for a deposit on a house. But I am better off pissing up against the wall and starting a new career as a social welfare claimant. I will have a free house from the council before I can afford one.

If you cannot afford the house, move.

ILoveYourVibes

Wheety wrote: »

I can't imagine banks are selling off up to date, performing loans? Why would you?

Yes absolutely they can get the most money for them. Throw in a few along with some doozies.

MrMusician18

Sheeps wrote: »

Vulture funds shouldn't be allowed operate. The banks should be addressing their arrears in the courts, and schemes like the mortgage to let schemes should be given full state backing. The answer to mortgage arrears isn't more homelessness.

The vulture funds aren't going to demolish the houses so it won't lead to more homelessness.

ILoveYourVibes

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The vulture funds aren't going to demolish the houses so it won't lead to more homelessness.

They will dive up rent and property prices though. Hugely.

dxhound2005

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

But we, the people, do NOT benefit in anyway from the state owning or part owning the banks. Bankers and government ministers benefit, vulture funds benefit, developers who made millions, lost millions and had that debt written off, benefitted. We the people got fúck all.

Anyone with deposits in the banks was saved from losing their money. Including lots of small depositors with Anglo Irish. Those advocating burning the bondholders would have burnt everyone.

Larbre34

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Anyone with deposits in the banks was saved from losing their money. Including lots of small depositors with Anglo Irish. Those advocating burning the bondholders would have burnt everyone.

Quite right. Not to mention the systemic necessity of actually having banks and by extension not spooking all foreign lenders and investors at once to call in all the markers at once and never come back.

It always makes me laugh the brave souls who would've cut loose the banks until you explain to them, very slowly, what would've happened to THEIR money.

Imagine your employer (provided they haven't gone instantly bust) no longer being able to pay you by bank transfer, so you queue for 4 hours while they cut everyone cheques for the last payroll run they have the liquidity to fund for a while. What to do with the cheque? Two options, try cashing it at the local bar (thought not) or drive to Dublin and get the Central Bank to honour it. Inconvenient, yes but nothing compared to the consequent hyper-inflation which reduces the value of your final wage packet by half before the month is up....

Yes Ireland got a wallop, but we entered a programme, we retained a lender of last resort and we kept the thing on the road to fight another day. Fianna Fail have lots to answer for, but Brian Lenihan was a ****in hero, he invented solutions to problems that no one had ever seen and his health and ultimately his life were the consequences.

Still unconvinced my little anti-capitalist chums? Iceland had, pro rata, the biggest financial calamity in first world history in 2008. Lets air some of the horrifying numbers and try to imagine how they wouldve affected Ireland, an Ireland that instead decided to scuttle its own financial system:

Stock exchange - down 90%

GDP - 10% contraction in 2 years (economic depression)

Inflation of 75%

Unemployment quadrupled. Those left in work saw swingeing cuts to salary and hours.

Pension fund assets - devalued by one third.

Currency freefall resulting in suspension of foreign transactions (yes Ireland had the € but imagine the contagion, € may have gone under)

Imports restricted only to humanitarian necessity (food, medicine, oil) to stop capital flight.

Monthly loans for this above purpose from other scandi countries, all insisting on open book scrutiny. Essentially Iceland was taken over externally and they had no way to avoid it. This is far far more severe than Troika programme.

Other "friendly" countries seized Icelandic foreign assets, fearing institutional criminality in their handling.

And the consequences go on.....

Never be naive about how the system effects everyone. Never doubt that a system needs vulture funds as much as it does banks, building societies, credit unions, investment funds, angel investors and peer-to-peer lenders. Why? Little thing called 'moral hazard.' Reward those who can't or won't pay their debts (the distinction is quite irrelevant) and we all pay the price in the end.

kneemos

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Anyone with deposits in the banks was saved from losing their money. Including lots of small depositors with Anglo Irish. Those advocating burning the bondholders would have burnt everyone.

There is deposit guarantee scheme in theory. That would have also cost billions.

At least with the bailout they got some or all of their money back.
The Government was substantially to blame for the whole mess with lax regulations.

mad muffin

Larbre34 wrote: »

Quite right. Not to mention the systemic necessity of actually having banks and by extension not spooking all foreign lenders and investors at once to call in all the markers at once and never come back.

It always makes me laugh the brave souls who would've cut loose the banks until you explain to them, very slowly, what would've happened to THEIR money.

Imagine your employer (provided they haven't gone instantly bust) no longer being able to pay you by bank transfer, so you queue for 4 hours while they cut everyone cheques for the last payroll run they have the liquidity to fund for a while. What to do with the cheque? Two options, try cashing it at the local bar (thought not) or drive to Dublin and get the Central Bank to honour it. Inconvenient, yes but nothing compared to the consequent hyper-inflation which reduces the value of your final wage packet by half before the month is up....

Yes Ireland got a wallop, but we entered a programme, we retained a lender of last resort and we kept the thing on the road to fight another day. Fianna Fail have lots to answer for, but Brian Lenihan was a ****in hero, he invented solutions to problems that no one had ever seen and his health and ultimately his life were the consequences.

Still unconvinced my little anti-capitalist chums? Iceland had, pro rata, the biggest financial calamity in first world history in 2008. Lets air some of the horrifying numbers and try to imagine how they wouldve affected Ireland, an Ireland that instead decided to scuttle its own financial system:

Stock exchange - down 90%

GDP - 10% contraction in 2 years (economic depression)

Inflation of 75%

Unemployment quadrupled. Those left in work saw swingeing cuts to salary and hours.

Pension fund assets - devalued by one third.

Currency freefall resulting in suspension of foreign transactions (yes Ireland had the € but imagine the contagion, € may have gone under)

Imports restricted only to humanitarian necessity (food, medicine, oil) to stop capital flight.

Monthly loans for this above purpose from other scandi countries, all insisting on open book scrutiny. Essentially Iceland was taken over externally and they had no way to avoid it. This is far far more severe than Troika programme.

Other "friendly" countries seized Icelandic foreign assets, fearing institutional criminality in their handling.

And the consequences go on.....

Never be naive about how the system effects everyone. Never doubt that a system needs vulture funds as much as it does banks, building societies, credit unions, investment funds, angel investors and peer-to-peer lenders. Why? Little thing called 'moral hazard.' Reward those who can't or won't pay their debts (the distinction is quite irrelevant) and we all pay the price in the end.

Yes, yes. Very good.

But tell me… how is Iceland doing now compared to Ireland? What debts were they saddled with?

As to the vulture funds. They are the major reason house prices and especially rents, are so high… thank you veeeery much Leo Varadkar.

Mad_maxx

Hal3000 wrote: »

And how are you with the banks being bailed out when they had no money?

Well if you are a mortgage holder?, you will be happy to know you are bailing out these freeloaders too by way of higher interest rates

Mad_maxx

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You dont have to be personally insolvent for a vulture fund to be able to buy your mortgage. You can have been always totally up to date on every payment.

In those cases you have nothing to worry about, pay your mortgage as before and you're sweet

It's usually the case where someone has their up to date mortgage bought by a vulture fund, that they have a second mortgage on another property which is in arrears long term, perhaps on a BTL

The good and the bad get bundled

Mad_maxx

mad muffin wrote: »

Yes, yes. Very good.

But tell me… how is Iceland doing now compared to Ireland? What debts were they saddled with?

As to the vulture funds. They are the major reason house prices and especially rents, are so high… thank you veeeery much Leo Varadkar.

Iceland is not doing anywhere near as well as us

super_furry

How many of the loans in these funds have been 'non-performing' for years? If you don't pay back your mortgage, your house is at risk. It feels like there's such a reluctance from banks to repossess houses because of bad publicity, that it's been allowed to fester for far, far too long. Talk of people not paying anything of their mortgages for four and five years and then crying the poor mouth when the bailiffs come.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

amcalester wrote: »

No, by we I mean the people of Ireland. The Government merely act on our behalf, ownership rests with the state i.e. the people.

Can't tell if serious, but I lolled anyway

Wheety

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Yes absolutely they can get the most money for them. Throw in a few along with some doozies.

Suppose for banks, they make most of their profit on mortgages in the first few years as that's where the interest payments are huge. They could then sell it off at a small discount on the the balance still owed and then lend that money to someone else.

So can they just sell an up to date loan like that? And then the new owners of your debt can say 'we're increasing your interest from 2.9% to 4%'?

GreeBo

Hal3000 wrote: »

By we you mean the Government of Ireland. Last time I checked I don't have any ownership of any of the banks, but my taxes paid for it.

You dont have ownership of any of the things your taxes pay for.

suicide_circus

I have a relation who works in insolvency (which is a harrowing and thankless job) and i can tell you two things;

1. Financial institutions are unbelievably patient with people who dont pay their mortgage and fear the bad PR that comes from repossession to a ludicrous level

2. There are a huge amount of piss takers gaming the system. People who know when to engage, when to play dumb and how to force delay for years and years.

MacDanger

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The vulture funds aren't going to demolish the houses so it won't lead to more homelessness.

That's something that irks me - when you hear about private landlords "being driven out of the market" and vulture funds taking over, it's as if the vulture funds don't intend to have anyone living in the houses they buy!!

The reason rents & prices are going up is because demand currently exceeds supply, it has very little to do with who actually owns the property.

Guy:Incognito

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Do you know how many more homeless that could create?

None. Unless you reckon their plan is to buy the properties and leave them vacant forever.

ShlugEireann

I think it's despicable that they are allowed to be called "vulture" funds. Vultures make it sound like they're exploiting people and taking advantage of them.

I will never understand how people defend not paying a mortgage. You knew the terms and conditions when you signed up.
In arrears? Tough ****, move into a smaller house and pay a mortgage where you aren't in arrears.

I don't care if you lost your job. I don't care if you bought at the peak. We all live and die by our decisions. Some people make good decisions, some make bad.

By the way, if people can't restructure their mortgage or pay back extra during an economic boom and labour shortage then they never will. Get them out.

Mad_maxx

ShlugEireann wrote: »

I think it's despicable that they are allowed to be called "vulture" funds. Vultures make it sound like they're exploiting people and taking advantage of them.

I will never understand how people defend not paying a mortgage. You knew the terms and conditions when you signed up.
In arrears? Tough ****, move into a smaller house and pay a mortgage where you aren't in arrears.

I don't care if you lost your job. I don't care if you bought at the peak. We all live and die by our decisions. Some people make good decisions, some make bad.

By the way, if people can't restructure their mortgage or pay back extra during an economic boom and labour shortage then they never will. Get them out.

Combination of two attitudes

1. Lack of personal responsibility - the banks - government shouldn't have allowed me to take out a mortgage

2. Sneaking regard for those who fiddle the system, considerably prevelent Irish trait.

You would be amazed at the number of people who think nothing of not paying various debts, it's not seen as anything close to theft which is exactly what it is

sbsquarepants

I think that people do need some kind of safety net from repossession - it's in no ones interest to have houses taken off families because they've missed 2 or 3 payments, but something like that simply doesn't happen in Ireland - you really need to fúck up badly to have "your" house taken off you.

If you haven't paid your mortgage in 5 years can you really be surprised you're being kicked out - come on now!

All the clowns cheering on this crazy "no consent, no sale" bill will be the very ones to demand something being done when the bank won't give their kids a mortgage in 10 years time. Just think about it - what kind of bank will loan a person hundreds of thousands which they can then just decide to not pay back with impunity - it's absolutely batshít crazy.

There are several reasons interest rates are so high in Ireland at a time of historically low ECB rates - but chief amongst them is it is so damn hard to do anything about a borrower who just doesn't want to pay, or can't pay (As has been stated already the distinction between those groups is entirely meaningless)

Go to Tesco - fill your trolley and walk out - what difference does it make legally if you had money but just didn't want to pay, or you wanted to pay but just didn't have money? None whatsoever, all that matters is that you didn't pay!

Mad_maxx

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think that people do need some kind of safety net from repossession - it's in no ones interest to have houses taken off families because they've missed 2 or 3 payments, but something like that simply doesn't happen in Ireland - you really need to fúck up badly to have "your" house taken off you.

If you haven't paid your mortgage in 5 years can you really be surprised you're being kicked out - come on now!

All the clowns cheering on this crazy "no consent, no sale" bill will be the very ones to demand something being done when the bank won't give their kids a mortgage in 10 years time. Just think about it - what kind of bank will loan a person hundreds of thousands which they can then just decide to not pay back with impunity - it's absolutely batshít crazy.

There are several reasons interest rates are so high in Ireland at a time of historically low ECB rates - but chief amongst them is it is so damn hard to do anything about a borrower who just doesn't want to pay, or can't pay (As has been stated already the distinction between those groups is entirely meaningless)

Go to Tesco - fill your trolley and walk out - what difference does it make legally if you had money but just didn't want to pay, or you wanted to pay but just didn't have money? None whatsoever, all that matters is that you didn't pay!

Your tesco analogy crystallises the absurdity of it but we are a very immature nation in many ways

Gunmonkey

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Your tesco analogy crystallises the absurdity of it but we are a very immature nation in many ways

Not immature, we just glamourise "chancers" as some kind of new age Robin Hood stealing from the man and the establishment.

Kivaro

This topic was on the Tonight Show last night.
It was such a cry fest. Pierce Doherty from Sinn Fein was his usual self in defense of people who do not fulfill the terms of the legal contract that they willingly signed. The vast majority of us are paying our mortgages; but Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail want the 97% who are not engaging or who are in arrears for more than 4 years to keep their houses.
Sinn Fein should not be called the Shinners anymore ........... Whiners would be more an apt name. Crying all the time with no reasonable solutions to put in place as an alternative.

What concerned me most about the discussion last night was Fianna Fail's response on the topic. Every day they are becoming more like Sinn Fein in their responses ............ with their representative on the Tonight Show talking about the depression and possible suicides of mortgage defaulters. Such melodrama. Some mortgage holders who pay off their mortgages every month also have depression and possible suicidal notions.

Fine Gael = horrible corrupt party. Should not get our votes in the upcoming election.
Fianna Fail = the new Sinn Fein with them chasing the welfare/populist vote. Should not get our votes. Turning too left of centre.
Sinn Fein = constantly losing support and will continue to do so with their ludicrous social and economic policies. Their open border stance is also hurting them.
The other parties are abysmal. Just want to take from the working people in this country.

Looks like Independents are our only option now; at least until a new centre party is formed ........... a party that will represent the will of the vast majority of working/contributing people in this country.

dxhound2005

Kivaro wrote: »

This topic was on the Tonight Show last night.
It was such a cry fest. Pierce Doherty from Sinn Fein was his usual self in defense of people who do not fulfill the terms of the legal contract that they willingly signed. The vast majority of us are paying our mortgages; but Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail want the 97% who are not engaging or who are in arrears for more than 4 years to keep their houses.
Sinn Fein should not be called the Shinners anymore ........... Whiners would be more an apt name. Crying all the time with no reasonable solutions to put in place as an alternative.

What concerned me most about the discussion last night was Fianna Fail's response on the topic. Every day they are becoming more like Sinn Fein in their responses ............ with their representative on the Tonight Show talking about the depression and possible suicides of mortgage defaulters. Such melodrama. Some mortgage holders who pay off their mortgages every month also have depression and possible suicidal notions.

Fine Gael = horrible corrupt party. Should not get our votes in the upcoming election.
Fianna Fail = the new Sinn Fein with them chasing the welfare/populist vote. Should not get our votes. Turning too left of centre.
Sinn Fein = constantly losing support and will continue to do so with their ludicrous social and economic policies. Their open border stance is also hurting them.
The other parties are abysmal. Just want to take from the working people in this country.

Looks like Independents are our only option now; at least until a new centre party is formed ........... a party that will represent the will of the vast majority of working/contributing people in this country.

How closely did you examine the policies of the parties when coming to that conclusion? There are about 20 parties, with huge differences in policies. Independents have proved not to be any better than party politicians.

Potential-Monke

I'll never feel sorry for a family, or sole owner, of a property if they're being kicked out for non-payment. I had to give up my house and take a 20k hit when I could no longer afford mine. No one has the right to stay in something they're not paying for if there is money due. It's that simple.

Kivaro

dxhound2005 wrote: »

How closely did you examine the policies of the parties when coming to that conclusion? There are about 20 parties, with huge differences in policies. Independents have proved not to be any better than party politicians.

Independents are the best of a horrible lot until a new party is formed.

But I'm all ears for your suggestion of a political party that does not cater to the "entitled" members of our society or knee-jerks acquiesce to the shriek demands of the liberal left.

riclad

A vulture fund is a company that invests in property,
some new buildings would not exist unless we had companys
willing to buy 20- 30 per cent of apartment units before they are are built .
Builders cannot always just go to a bank and get 100 per cent finance of a new building and a site to build on.
Some units are pre sold to investors or private companys .
In 2018 there were 2100 new units built .
About 5000 apartments built in 2018 were not sold.
This data is from a sunday times article published last week.
The more expensive ones are still for sale.
Apartment blocks are expensive to build , there has to be common spaces and parking spaces built and lifts .
the days of local authority,s building 1000,s of houses in big estates
seem to be over .
The government seems to be mostly reliant on private companys
to solve the housing crisis .
Its like the people in private accomodation who stop paying rent,
people who do not pay the mortgage will be able to stay in the house for years until they are taken to court and evicted .
The banks choose to sell 1000,s of propertys at a discount
to private companys to write off bad loans .
On houses that were over valued in the boom before 2008.
I Think we are at the peak of house prices in dublin , builders cannot put up prices much more on new builds , as they are limited by the rules set by bank lending limits .

Gunmonkey

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Not immature, we just glamourise "chancers" as some kind of new age Robin Hood stealing from the man and the establishment.

Even better if “the man” is a faceless organisation with the nickname “vulture fund”.

Mad_maxx

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Not immature, we just glamourise "chancers" as some kind of new age Robin Hood stealing from the man and the establishment.

That's immature

is_that_so

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Yes absolutely they can get the most money for them. Throw in a few along with some doozies.

They can do both to sweeten the deal. The reason here is ECB directive to get down to 5% of loans as NPL.

is_that_so

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

But we, the people, do NOT benefit in anyway from the state owning or part owning the banks. Bankers and government ministers benefit, vulture funds benefit, developers who made millions, lost millions and had that debt written off, benefitted. We the people got fúck all.

A lot of those developers have gone now. The banks took the hit with knockdown rollup into NAMA of loans. We /The government/The state took stakes in the remaining pillar banks. They have paid a lot of money for the guarantees and have promised to pay back money lent to them.