The Belly wrote: » If you go back it late i cant provide you with a link but its in already.
Graham wrote: » I find no reference to it anywhere.Mod Note Please don't post that claim as fact again unless you can back it up.
Graham wrote: » Mod Note You made the claim. If you can't back it up do not make post it again. Do not reply to this post.
The Belly wrote: » read what i just posted ffs
The Belly wrote: » From January 1, 2015, all EU Member States were required to transpose the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) into their national law. A key element of the new powers is the bail-in tool, requiring banks to recapitalize and absorb losses from within, which was made mandatory as of January 1, 2016.
Graham wrote: » Mod Note You made the claim. If you can't back it up do not post it again. Do not reply to this post.
Hubertj wrote: » That’s not removing the bgs. You a tin foil hatter?
The Belly wrote: » Sorry Graham im not trying to be a pr..k but after the last time it means 100k can be lifted and you or on the hook if your a depositor.
Graham wrote: » I genuinely think you're misinterpreting the BRRD.
Graham wrote: » I genuinely think you're misinterpreting the BRRD. Nothing in the part you posted suggested the removal of the guarantee scheme.
The Belly wrote: » Ok but the point your missing is it can be removed.
Graham wrote: » The point you're missing is it hasn't been removed and there is no suggestion it is going to be removed. That sort of unnecessary scaremongering is not welcome in A & P unless you want to start a thread discussing the hypothetical implications on the property market on the removal of the guarantee scheme.
schmittel wrote: » The Deposit guarantee scheme is alive and well, but If it was suddenly overturned property prices would rocket. I cannot imagine anything more bullish for property than the removal of that guarantee! (Assuming people could get their money out in time!)
Bass Reeves wrote: » I think The Belly and Neutral Guy are having wet dreams at the moment
javaboy wrote: » It’s a listed building too which I believe makes it BER exempt.
Foggy Jew wrote: » Just curious.... where would a person move to after selling a pad like this?
brisan wrote: » Why would it be listed Pre 1963 buildings are not BER exempt as a group.
Where land is available, actual construction, de-risked from speculative markets and high-cost finance, is affordable, ” University College Dublin academic and housing expert Orla Hegarty, who obtained the figures, said. This is confirmed by the department’s own figures, Ms Hegarty said
awec wrote: » I'm a bit confused by that article. It says: Is it saying that if you don't have to pay for land it's cheaper to build? In which case.... uh obviously?
Pelezico wrote: » Does not seem obvious to me. Not sure why land should impact building cost.