Irish Mortgage Corp. "a deal with the devil".

lastlaugh · 11-10-2011 08:31PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

yea but only one person here lost their life because of this stupidity

and it was not the broker or the regulator

this is bull**** blaming the borrower - people are stupid
couple that with money and its a recipe for disaster

that is why we were supposed to have a regulator and laws to protect people from themselves
in this case and many many others the protectors turned their backs while the money vultures prayed on this ill informed and ill equipped couple

people have short memory's - don't forget the near universal feeling that the good times were not going to end - they probably really thought they were going to be able to pay this back

all well and good sitting on your pc having no sympathy for these people ,
but they made a bad financial decision - guided by " professionals " and one of them ended up dead - you people make me sick

lets hope you all never make a bad decision that cost's you your life

Ah, God love the poor stupid people. That's a great argument.

I heard the interview with the woman on Drivetime earlier, I can't understand why her and her late husband went ahead and agreed to borrow 350K @ 1.8K a month over 34yrs. Especially since she was on welfare and the husband was on "the sick". I'm not surprised the man killed himself considering the pressure he must have been under to meet the repayments.

Even more preposterous though is why they were approved to get the money. Someone needs to be strung up by the balls for that alright.

Wertz · 11-10-2011 08:45PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

yea but only one person here lost their life because of this stupidity

and it was not the broker or the regulator

Guy took his own life same way as he took on the mortgage...both were his choice. No-one put a gun to his head in either instance.
Harsh but true.

dj jarvis wrote: »

this is bull**** blaming the borrower - people are stupid
couple that with money and its a recipe for disaster

that is why we were supposed to have a regulator and laws to protect people from themselves
in this case and many many others the protectors turned their backs while the money vultures prayed on this ill informed and ill equipped couple

Like it or not they have to shoulder some of the blame...yes the regulator didn't do his job properly, more than just him to blame here...it goes right up and down the chain.

You can only protect people from themselves so much...we can't wrap the population in a cottonball of regulation against every slight possibility.

dj jarvis wrote: »

people have short memory's - don't forget the near universal feeling that the good times were not going to end - they probably really thought they were going to be able to pay this back

I personally don't recall that feeling... nothing lasts forever, especially low interest money...did any of them give thought to what was going to happen in the next 30 yrs? Looks like many of them didn;t worry about how it was going to go for the next 3 yrs...

dj jarvis wrote: »

all well and good sitting on your pc having no sympathy for these people ,
but they made a bad financial decision - guided by " professionals " and one of them ended up dead - you people make me sick

lets hope you all never make a bad decision that cost's you your life

Hang on a second...no-one's not having sympathy or whatever hysteria you're peddling...
In many cases borrowers are compeltely to blame...in some cases they share equal responsibility with the vultures that lent out the money.

To re-iterate, it takes two to tango...

Unfortunately we'll all at some point in our lives make a decision that directly or indirectly ends that life.

dj jarvis · 11-10-2011 08:45PM

lastlaugh wrote: »

Ah, God love the poor stupid people. That's a great argument.

I heard the interview with the woman on Drivetime earlier, I can't understand why her and her late husband went ahead and agreed to borrow 350K @ 1.8K a month over 34yrs. Especially since she was on welfare and the husband was on "the sick". I'm not surprised the man killed himself considering the pressure he must have been under to meet the repayments.

Even more preposterous though is why they were approved to get the money. Someone needs to be strung up by the balls for that alright.

listen - dont love the stupid people but you have to protect them from these feckin sharks - country is full of dopes - that is why we are supposed to have regulation - they were mental for borrowing that amount of money - truly mad !!!

BUT they should have never gotten near the cash full stop , so is it their fault ? i dont think so

idiots will ALWAYS try and borrow more than they can afford
can you really blame a idiot for being a idiot ?
in my view 99% of the blame lies with the broker - lender and regulator

easy to scoff at the borrowers stupidity - but they were stupid
what else would you expect them 2 do ?

dj jarvis · 11-10-2011 08:52PM

Wertz wrote: »

Guy took his own life same way as he took on the mortgage...both were his choice. No-one put a gun to his head in either instance.
Harsh but true.

that is why we were supposed to have a regulator and laws to protect people from themselves
in this case and many many others the protectors turned their backs while the money vultures prayed on this ill informed and ill equipped couple

Like it or not they have to shoulder some of the blame...yes the regulator didn't do his job properly, more than just him to blame here...it goes right up and down the chain.

You can only protect people from themselves so much...we can't rap the population in a cottonball of regulation against every slight possibility.

I personally don't recall that feeling... nothing lasts forever, especially low interest money...did any of them give thought to what was going to happen in the next 30 yrs? Looks like many of them didn;t worry about how it was going to go for the next 3 yrs...

Hang on a second...no-one's not having sympathy or whatever hysteria you're peddling...
In many cases borrowers are compeltely to blame...in some cases they share equal responsibility with the vultures that lent out the money.

To re-iterate, it takes two to tango...

Unfortunately we'll all at some point in our lives make a decision that directly or indirectly ends that life.[/QUOTE]

read my post i did say NEAR universal - well done you for being so far sighted in your affairs

so EVERY person that borrowed on the strength of the wage they were earning at the time is a idiot ?
so when should people take out loans ? when they are out of work ?
i bought a house at the height of the boom - based on my past and present earnings - that is how it works

how is it my bad decision making if the world economy falls on its arse ?

its gas to see how many financial wizards appear after the fact

people did hang - unfortunately it was not the lender or regulator instead it was some gob**** who should never been given the money in the first place

westendgirlie · 11-10-2011 08:56PM

Can someone explain what a sub prime lender is?

lastlaugh · 11-10-2011 08:56PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

[/B]
listen - dont love the stupid people but you have to protect them from these feckin sharks - country is full of dopes - that is why we are supposed to have regulation - they were mental for borrowing that amount of money - truly mad !!!

BUT they should have never gotten near the cash full stop , so is it their fault ? i dont think so

idiots will ALWAYS try and borrow more than they can afford
can you really blame a idiot for being a idiot ?
in my view 99% of the blame lies with the broker - lender and regulator

easy to scoff at the borrowers stupidity - but they were stupid
what else would you expect them 2 do ?

You are right. They never should have gotten the money, it's ridiculous that they did.

I suppose people will always chance their arm.

mickydoomsux · 11-10-2011 08:57PM

westendgirlie wrote: »

Can someone explain what a sub prime lender is?

They give loans to people who shouldn't be given loans because they can't afford them.

wild_cat · 11-10-2011 08:59PM

I heard the lady from the article on drive time this evening.

Her husband was on sick benefit and she was allowed to work 14 hours a week as part of what ever benefit she was on. She did this on their fruit stall each Sunday. At the time she was bringing in 200-300 euro a week from the stall. Over 35 years her repayments were 1800 a month...

They had a tonne of other loans with credit unions and other institutions and they went for the largest loan they could get 350,000 thousand... and rolled all the loans into one.

westendgirlie · 11-10-2011 09:00PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

They give loans to people who shouldn't be given loans because they can't afford them.

So all mortgage providers are, in some respect, sub prime lenders ???

starbelgrade · 11-10-2011 09:03PM

westendgirlie wrote: »

So all mortgage providers are, in some respect, sub prime lenders ???

Good point!

Bullseye1 · 11-10-2011 09:06PM

That is probably a fair assessment. Banks should take on some of the risk in all of this and therefore they should be taking a hit on these mortgages. They had the professional people giving out these 100 and 110% mortgages. They were giving out money to people who should never have gotten the money they were given.

Wertz · 11-10-2011 09:09PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

read my post i did say NEAR universal - well done you for being so far sighted in your affairs

Oh I wasn't far sighted, I was just single and low waged, hence renting my only option.
I was offered mortgage and I could have fiddled wage slips and borrowed a deposit, but renting still seemed like the way to go for me.

dj jarvis wrote: »

so EVERY person that borrowed on the strength of the wage they were earning at the time is a idiot ?
so when should people take out loans ? when they are out of work ?
i bought a house at the height of the boom - based on my past and present earnings - that is how it works

I never called anyone an idiot...people should take out loans they can afford to pay back for the lifetime of the loan and allowing for worst case scenarios over the term...
The whole mess we're in is partly a result of people borrowing and being loaned stupid amounts that drove up the cost of all housing and created an even greater demand (this is no one individual's fault here)

dj jarvis wrote: »

how is it my bad decision making if the world economy falls on its arse ?

its gas to see how many financial wizards appear after the fact

Part of the reason the world economy fell on it's arse is ledning money out to people that can't pay it back.
I'm no financial wizard, far from it...but I'm sensible enough to know that you don't borrow money that you haven't a hope of being able to service over the course of your working life.

these houses that were being bought and sold were worth whatever someone was willing to pay and whatever some company was willing to loan toward the purchase... as someone who worked in the building trade and watched people queue at showhouses, I couldn't help but wonder why these houses were worth two and three times what they'd cost to build and where all this money to buy them was coming from...no-one asked those questions, they just saw "everyone else" taking the plunge and jumped in themselves.

It's a hugely complex issue and nothing you or I say, arguing about it after the fact is going to change much.

People can't be absolved of all blame in these situations for the mere reason that they didn't know any better...bottom line is they still took the money... they shouldn't have been offered it BUT they shouldn't have taken it... Sorry but that's my take on it.

dj jarvis wrote: »

people did hang - unfortunately it was not the lender or regulator instead it was some gob**** who should never been given the money in the first place

we're all pissed at the lack of regulation and some of the f8ckers that presided over things should be shot at dawn...but again (ad I'm not trying to eb cruel here) they TOOK the money and signed the agreement... suicide as a way out of financial problems is counter productive. Things are never that bad...unfortunately some see it as the only way out.

Eoin · 11-10-2011 09:14PM

westendgirlie wrote: »

So all mortgage providers are, in some respect, sub prime lenders ???

There's a difference. Subprime lenders provide mortgages with much higher interest rates and less favourable terms. There's a much higher chance of default, so they make sure that they're quids in if that happens.

They're the same as the money sharks you see on UK TV that offer short term loans that come with an APR that's often over 1000%.

westendgirlie · 11-10-2011 09:16PM

JoeyJJ wrote: »

Well it looks like they paid off the mortgage, however if took his life to do it, not the greatest price, i'm sure she wouldn't want to do it over.

Assuming the mortgage company obeyed law and made them get life assurance to cover the mortgage and signed the legal doc to pay the mortgage co first.

I've never heard of life insurance paying out IF the insured takes their own life. Sure there is a clause in policies for this.

mickydoomsux · 11-10-2011 09:25PM

westendgirlie wrote: »

I've never heard of life insurance paying out IF the insured takes their own life. Sure there is a clause in policies for this.

Yeah, i'm pretty sure most life assurance doesn't pay out in case of suicide.

maringo · 11-10-2011 09:44PM

lastlaugh wrote: »

I was watching the Frontline last night and there was a guy on it complaining that he got a 340K mortgage on an apartment that was now worth, he reckoned, about 90K.

WTF was he doing getting a mortgage for that much for an apartment in the first place?

While I sympathise with people who are in negative equatity who want to start a family and are trapped in some pokey two bedroom box, I find it hard to feel sorry for people who bought places as a status symbol.

In case you don't remember, it was impossible to buy a house due to the smallest house in Dublin costing over 500,000 euros. So people went for apartments in order to get onto the housing ladder - as the hype was that houses would go up and up in value and you wouldnt ever get onto the housing ladder. Young couples were just doing what young couples do - buying a home to settle down - I'd call that quite normal behaviour. People were manipulated by a pro-property boom media and government into queuing all night to book these jerry-built apartments. Money was shovelled out by the banks and brokers who couldn't give enough fast enough. It was all about commission and profit. If you remember the "churning" scandal in the insurance industry some years ago - I certainly don't remember any company md going to jail for that. Churning involved persuading their policy holders to move onto a different insurance policy - all with the object of the seller getting commission for a second time. Greedy government cleaning up and lenders operating without properly enforced regulations. A recipe for disaster. Lets hope we learn the lessons from this social and economic fiasco.

dj jarvis · 11-10-2011 10:06PM

Wertz wrote: »

Oh I wasn't far sighted, I was just single and low waged, hence renting my only option.
I was offered mortgage and I could have fiddled wage slips and borrowed a deposit, but renting still seemed like the way to go for me.

I never called anyone an idiot...people should take out loans they can afford to pay back for the lifetime of the loan and allowing for worst case scenarios over the term...
The whole mess we're in is partly a result of people borrowing and being loaned stupid amounts that drove up the cost of all housing and created an even greater demand (this is no one individual's fault here)

Part of the reason the world economy fell on it's arse is ledning money out to people that can't pay it back.
I'm no financial wizard, far from it...but I'm sensible enough to know that you don't borrow money that you haven't a hope of being able to service over the course of your working life.

these houses that were being bought and sold were worth whatever someone was willing to pay and whatever some company was willing to loan toward the purchase... as someone who worked in the building trade and watched people queue at showhouses, I couldn't help but wonder why these houses were worth two and three times what they'd cost to build and where all this money to buy them was coming from...no-one asked those questions, they just saw "everyone else" taking the plunge and jumped in themselves.

It's a hugely complex issue and nothing you or I say, arguing about it after the fact is going to change much.

People can't be absolved of all blame in these situations for the mere reason that they didn't know any better...bottom line is they still took the money... they shouldn't have been offered it BUT they shouldn't have taken it... Sorry but that's my take on it.

we're all pissed at the lack of regulation and some of the f8ckers that presided over things should be shot at dawn...but again (ad I'm not trying to eb cruel here) they TOOK the money and signed the agreement... suicide as a way out of financial problems is counter productive. Things are never that bad...unfortunately some see it as the only way out.

look you are picking me up wrong or trying for a wind up

they should not have borrowed that amount of cash - full stop
im not trying to defend the stupid borrowing at all
my point started because the vitriol against these people

they made a real stupid decision and in fairness they paid the ultimate
price for their actions

but
the reason we have laws - protection - checks and balances - regulation
is for these very cases - they real blame in my eyes lay with the broker for obviously pushing a lost cause - why ? he wanted his bonus

and they you have the lender at fault for not doing due diligence on the application - then handing 350,00 to someone on welfare - do they not check these things ?

and last the regulator who was busy sitting on his hands and ignoring the real situation developing around him

if ONE of these people was actually doing the job they are feckin paid for this bloke would never have got the cash - and maybe this bloke MIGHT still be alive

when i got my house the bank offered me DOUBLE of what i needed,
now me and the wife had the cop on not to go mad , in actual fact we bought as cheep as we could get - not a great area or house but ok

this couple did not have cop on, and to shield them - us - and the financial community they should have been stopped at day 1

in my opinion the were ****ed from the start - some people will always chance their arm - the above mentioned were supposed to put a stop to it and did not - really who is a fault here? the 3 who were supposed to protect his interests and ours, or some poor ****er who got blinded by the cash and made a mistake

lastlaugh · 11-10-2011 10:17PM

maringo wrote: »

In case you don't remember, it was impossible to buy a house due to the smallest house in Dublin costing over 500,000 euros. So people went for apartments in order to get onto the housing ladder - as the hype was that houses would go up and up in value and you wouldnt ever get onto the housing ladder. Young couples were just doing what young couples do - buying a home to settle down - I'd call that quite normal behaviour. People were manipulated by a pro-property boom media and government into queuing all night to book these jerry-built apartments. Money was shovelled out by the banks and brokers who couldn't give enough fast enough. It was all about commission and profit. If you remember the "churning" scandal in the insurance industry some years ago - I certainly don't remember any company md going to jail for that. Churning involved persuading their policy holders to move onto a different insurance policy - all with the object of the seller getting commission for a second time. Greedy government cleaning up and lenders operating without properly enforced regulations. A recipe for disaster. Lets hope we learn the lessons from this social and economic fiasco.

500K? That would depend on where you were willing to live.
A friend of mine insisted on buying a house for 450K, while equivalent houses 5mins down the road were the best part of 100K cheaper. Despite this, he bit the bullet and bought the pricey one, two years later he lost his job and is now royally screwed. I knew at the time he was being dangerously silly and letting his 'snobby' side get the better of him.

But yes, people were manipulated and the complete absense of regulation and government/developer/estate agent greed has a lot of people in a bad way.

Snakeblood · 11-10-2011 10:19PM

wild_cat wrote: »

I heard the lady from the article on drive time this evening.

Her husband was on sick benefit and she was allowed to work 14 hours a week as part of what ever benefit she was on. She did this on their fruit stall each Sunday. At the time she was bringing in 200-300 euro a week from the stall. Over 35 years her repayments were 1800 a month...

They had a tonne of other loans with credit unions and other institutions and they went for the largest loan they could get 350,000 thousand... and rolled all the loans into one.

I was listening to that. She was not allowed to earn 200-300 from the stall, she was either lying or ignorant on that one, and my money would be on lying to social welfare about it, and said that she didn't have a problem with the payments at first because she was paying the money back using the mortgage, which was just bizarre. She should never have been given that loan, she sounded, to be charitable, not bright enough to be given large sums of cash tht she would have to pay back.

Eoin · 11-10-2011 10:31PM

lastlaugh wrote:

500K? That would depend on where you were willing to live.
A friend of mine insisted on buying a house for 450K, while equivalent houses 5mins down the road were the best part of 100K cheaper. Despite this, he bit the bullet and bought the pricey one, two years later he lost his job and is now royally screwed. I knew at the time he was being dangerously silly and letting his 'snobby' side get the better of him

If he lost his job, would the cheaper mortgage have made much difference?

lastlaugh · 11-10-2011 10:37PM

Eoin wrote: »

If he lost his job, would the cheaper mortgage have made much difference?

He wouldn't owe as much now, and during the two tears he was working, the repayments would have been a lot less.

Also, his wife is working and they have three kids, so a cheaper mortgage now would mean it would not be quite as difficult as it is for them.

Monty Burnz · 11-10-2011 11:38PM

maringo wrote: »

In case you don't remember, it was impossible to buy a house due to the smallest house in Dublin costing over 500,000 euros. So people went for apartments in order to get onto the housing ladder - as the hype was that houses would go up and up in value and you wouldnt ever get onto the housing ladder.

What does the hype say now? Cos I'm just going to act on that. **** it, there's no way I'm going to waste my own valuable time looking into it and coming to a common-sense view, I'll just do whatever's in the media. The state will bail me out either way.

maringo wrote: »

Young couples were just doing what young couples do - buying a home to settle down - I'd call that quite normal behaviour. People were manipulated by a pro-property boom media and government into queuing all night to book these jerry-built apartments. Money was shovelled out by the banks and brokers who couldn't give enough fast enough. It was all about commission and profit.

They didn't shovel it out to anyone who didn't ask for it. I know, because I didn't get any.

maringo wrote: »

If you remember the "churning" scandal in the insurance industry some years ago - I certainly don't remember any company md going to jail for that. Churning involved persuading their policy holders to move onto a different insurance policy - all with the object of the seller getting commission for a second time. Greedy government cleaning up and lenders operating without properly enforced regulations. A recipe for disaster. Lets hope we learn the lessons from this social and economic fiasco.

I doubt it. The only lesson I've learned is to act irresponsibly and then cry like a baby when it goes wrong - let everyone else pay for my mistakes. There's a long thread about the autistic and mentally handicapped baby who can only get 4 nappies per day from the HSE due to cuts. Well guess where that money is going? And I wonder how many nappies he'll be getting when we start writing off debt for grown adults who did something stupid of their own volition...

donalg1 · 11-10-2011 11:38PM

Seriously though why would you take out a 300k mortgage when on social welfare beggars belief. And I suppose we are meant to feel sorry for people like this?

dj jarvis · 11-10-2011 11:53PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What does the hype say now? Cos I'm just going to act on that. **** it, there's no way I'm going to waste my own valuable time looking into it and coming to a common-sense view, I'll just do whatever's in the media. The state will bail me out either way.

They didn't shovel it out to anyone who didn't ask for it. I know, because I didn't get any.

I doubt it. The only lesson I've learned is to act irresponsibly and then cry like a baby when it goes wrong - let everyone else pay for my mistakes. There's a long thread about the autistic and mentally handicapped baby who can only get 4 nappies per day from the HSE due to cuts. Well guess where that money is going? And I wonder how many nappies he'll be getting when we start writing off debt for grown adults who did something stupid of their own volition...

you would never guess it was a full moon

My_left_leg · 12-10-2011 12:14AM

westendgirlie wrote: »

Can someone explain what a sub prime lender is?

it's finance speak for a LOAN SHARK.

they charge exhorbitant rates, and impose punative charges and penalties.
even as you sign the dotted line they know it's only a matter of time before you default, and then guess what :eek:............?

ascanbe · 12-10-2011 12:50AM

My_left_leg wrote: »

it's finance speak for a LOAN SHARK.

they charge exhorbitant rates, and impose punative charges and penalties.
even as you sign the dotted line they know it's only a matter of time before you default, and then guess what :eek:............?

The Irish banks were, in essence, sub-prime lenders, as they recklessly lent to pretty much anyone without giving a thought to the future of the economy or whether or not they would be able to pay it back.
The preponderance of sub-prime lenders in the US stemmed from the 'Gramm-Leach-Bliley act' which allowed mortgages to be bundled up into securities and sold off.
Our previous government/regulator don't even have that flimsy excuse, though; the bad borrowing/lending practices in our banks were clear to see if they'd bothered to look/understood their implications.

Monty Burnz · 12-10-2011 07:50AM

dj jarvis wrote: »

you would never guess it was a full moon

I suppose if you can't manage a counter-argument, an insult is a good second best. :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz · 12-10-2011 07:53AM

My_left_leg wrote: »

it's finance speak for a LOAN SHARK.

they charge exhorbitant rates, and impose punative charges and penalties.
even as you sign the dotted line they know it's only a matter of time before you default, and then guess what :eek:............?

That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that they offer credit to high-risk customers who other lenders won't touch. Because there's a high risk they won't get their money back, they charge borrowers more to cover the losses from those who don't pay them back.

I would never borrow from a sub-prime lender, but then I have the choice. For other people (e.g. those who have defaulted on debt before) it's sub-prime or nothing. I guess some people would rather remove that choice for them.

Gmol · 12-10-2011 09:19AM

dj jarvis wrote: »

[/B]
listen - dont love the stupid people but you have to protect them from these feckin sharks - country is full of dopes - that is why we are supposed to have regulation - they were mental for borrowing that amount of money - truly mad !!!

BUT they should have never gotten near the cash full stop , so is it their fault ? i dont think so

idiots will ALWAYS try and borrow more than they can afford
can you really blame a idiot for being a idiot ?
in my view 99% of the blame lies with the broker - lender and regulator

easy to scoff at the borrowers stupidity - but they were stupid
what else would you expect them 2 do ?

what are you suggesting here, currently if you are 18 and over you are entitled to enter into a legal contract. Are you suggesting that there should be an IQ test to decide if people are competent to borrow. Banks loan money in their own interest, you are responsible for your own interest and should protect yourself by getting independent advice. Banks are not your friend

Monty Burnz · 12-10-2011 09:22AM

Gmol wrote: »

what are you suggesting here, currently if you are 18 and over you are entitled to enter into a legal contract. Are you suggesting that there should be an IQ test to decide if people are competent to borrow. Banks loan money in their own interest, you are responsible for your own interest and should protect yourself by getting independent advice. Banks are not your friend

Can you imagine the howls of protest from all these borrowers during the bubble if they'd been turned down for loans for being too ignorant/too stupid? The only complaints I remember from borrowers 5 years ago were along the lines of 'the bank will only lend me (8 times salary), the bastards'...

Irish Mortgage Corp. "a deal with the devil".

Comments