Why have the govt forced AIB to drop interest rates and not PTSB?

Jimmy Two Times · 13-03-2012 03:28PM

smash wrote: »

You must be American, because that's illegal in Ireland. You're still accountable for the debt.

What you said was that you didn't overextend yourself like everyone else did, now you're saying "some people" :rolleyes:

Definitely not American.

While you are still accountable for the balance of the debt...........you might try explaining to me how the bank can get it if ( as mentioned in my original post ) there are no other assets.

blackwhite · 13-03-2012 03:35PM

MCMLXXV wrote: »

What bugs me is that I'm paying over 2% more than (I feel ) I should be paying in mortgage rates which is costing me an axtra €300 a month. That's €300 a month I could really, really do with seeing as we're down €1000 in expendable income between Dec 10 and Jan 12.

I assume when you choose PTSB for your mortgage that it was because they offered you a more favourable rate/structure than any other bank?

In that case, you were paying less in the past than if you had been with AIB, but I'm sure you weren't complaining about the difference then.

I've some sympathy for you, in that you made some bad choices and are now suffering the consequences. But I don't see why you should be insulated from the consequences of what was, ultimately, your own decision.

emo72 · 13-03-2012 03:39PM

Queuing through the night. A couple of hundred young kids. To put a deposit on a 3 bed semi for300,000. The next batch of houses released from the developer would be 350,000. These people are not greedy.that's all that was available.

I get feeling that there is a lot of revisionism going on in Ireland. These people were not stupid either. Everyone looking back saying I would never had signed up to that. A lot of people had no choice. Everyone including government, media, friends, family was saying its the right thing to do.

smash · 13-03-2012 03:39PM

Jimmy Two Times wrote: »

Definitely not American.

While you are still accountable for the balance of the debt...........you might try explaining to me how the bank can get it if ( as mentioned in my original post ) there are no other assets.

You don't need assets, the debt is still in your name. Don't pay, go to prison.

Faolchu wrote: »

cant seem to see where i said that, maybe you can point it out to me.

"did teh government force people to over extend and become massivly in debt and in a large hole with negative equity? eh no coz ya see i bought my place at the height of the boom too, but i figured i'd buy small and not overextend myself to the pont that while i was on a decent wage i didnt have a pot to piss in. instead i figured i'd buy small and live comfortably. am i in negative equity now? yeah but not as bad as most people"

Not directly, but you implied.

RXMPS · 13-03-2012 03:49PM

emo72 wrote: »

Queuing through the night. A couple of hundred young kids. To put a deposit on a 3 bed semi for300,000. The next batch of houses released from the developer would be 350,000. These people are not greedy.that's all that was available.

I get feeling that there is a lot of revisionism going on in Ireland. These people were not stupid either. Everyone looking back saying I would never had signed up to that. A lot of people had no choice. Everyone including government, media, friends, family was saying its the right thing to do.

They had a choice.

I and thousands of others could have bought, I was called stingy, tight etc because I had no interest in buying.

My father told me a long time ago, that if you can't buy it in cash you can't afford, as god only knows what is around the next corner.

I drive a 02 car, because it's all the cash I had to spare and I am renting so I can build up savings over the next 10 years to buy a house for cash.

Drumpot · 13-03-2012 03:51PM

I love reading some of these kinds of threads when you get all sorts of pc warriors with their idiotic, ill informed, ramblings ignoring the concept of moral hazzard of banking (more specifically mortgages) and and a government/electorate that pushed, badly regulated and greatly benefited from the property bubble when the going was good .

Taxes made directly/indirectly through jobs, goods, services, stamp duty etc was gladly received by the government when the going was good.

I pay my mortgage and intend on paying it back in full but then again I take responsibility for the decisions I make, which is more that can be said for the electorate/taxpayer/government/banks of this country.

As far as I am concerned, if I have trouble paying my mortgage, I have a right to expect the government to assist in some way. The economy, infrastructure, public service etc, all benefited on my back during the boom. At the peak, some economists suggested that up to 50% of the cost of the house made its way back to the state coffers in some form. I chose to purchase during the boom, likewise the government/electorate chose to exploit the boom for their own ends and for that they have their own role to play in the mortgage arrears crisis.

Then lets look at the banks. Private institutions that gave out private loans. Because they have been pretty much bought up by the state, people seem to get quite sensitive with the whole "well you made a stupid decision" bollox whereby they actually care if the bank loses money (because in turn the taxpayer has to cover the losses). My contract was with a private institution, if they werent being funded by the state, people would be cheering on defaulters for showing the banks what happens when they over extend themselves. But the vested interests of those lucky enough not to be in negative equity, never ceases to push their ignorant views to the top of these kind of debates.

I find it odd when people speak of "idiots" who bought during the boom. If you wanted a family and a place to live you are an idiot? most of the people I know bought during 2004-2008 and are suffering serious negative equity. I know one or two who purchased as an investment, but most purchased because they wanted a home. Forget the bankers, builders, councellors (badly zoning land like my estate on a flood marsh!), politicians, electorate (that demanded more tax incentives for property, higher public expenditure) or the government. Lets focus on the individuals who wanted to have their own house , they are the real villians of this disaster . . Shame on them indeed.

Bad Panda · 13-03-2012 03:53PM

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Look lads, I get how many people didn't buy houses in the boom and rented instead any you're all great lads with all that foresight but when y'all find the time to get down off your smug high horses you might just realise that there's a load of people in the sh1t right now and your comments don't help. I'm not complaining that I have to pay my mortgage, I'm complaining that I have to pay 2% more than I should have to. And to be frank, I could really do with that additional €300 a month in my pocket right now.

I could really do without that 'USC' charge on my pay cheque at the moment.

I wasn't irresponsible. I didn't borrow more than I could afford for a property that's worth a tin of tuna in a cardboard box estate (not saying that's where you live!) - I wasn't trying to keep up with Jones'.

But yeah, you're the one who's being treated unfairly!

Faolchu · 13-03-2012 03:54PM

smash wrote: »

Not directly, but you implied.

right i didnt actually say it, you assumed i said it :rolleyes: so maybe nect time dont go making statements about what i "said" when clearly i didnt actually say it. the implication that i said "everyone" over extended was your mistake not mine. it could easily be implied that i meant some people which given my further comments is more likely the case,

phil1nj · 13-03-2012 03:54PM

smash wrote: »

You don't need assets, the debt is still in your name. Don't pay, go to prison.

.

Brillant. The banks get no money, the individual can't work and therefore pays no taxes. And the kicker is the taxpayer gets to feed, clothe and house the offender for an indeterminate time in a not-at-all overflowing prison system. Where's the downside?

Captain Darling · 13-03-2012 03:55PM

Hmmm, i love the knee jerk 'no one was holding a gun to your head' after hours response.

A lot of these people are young couples who, as has been the tradition here, wanted to buy a property to start and raise their family in. They didnt necessarily buy a massive house but they paid over the odds for it without having a crystal ball to see the bubble burst.

The majority of people that are in this trouble are young families not some fcuking lunatic property speculators.

The government failed to regulate the banking sector who were firing out mortgages willy nilly and a lot of people got caught in this who were genuinely just trying to set up a life for their family.

Its just a sad state of affairs. Typical AH response though, people are living in poverty because government policy and regulation of our financial affairs was criminally neglected. Thats where all the ire should be directed.

gurramok · 13-03-2012 03:56PM

emo72 wrote: »

Queuing through the night. A couple of hundred young kids. To put a deposit on a 3 bed semi for300,000. The next batch of houses released from the developer would be 350,000. These people are not greedy.that's all that was available..

Were these houses made of gold??!

They were not some people desperate for a home, they already had a roof over their heads in some shape or form. They had an alternative called rent but turned their nose down at 'loser renters'.

smash · 13-03-2012 03:56PM

I know people who purchased properties and bank shares on advice from their pension advisor's and financial advisor's through the banks and through private firms. These people are not accountable in any way. I fail to see why it should all fall back on the purchaser given that the so called experts pushed for it.

emo72 · 13-03-2012 03:57PM

RXMPS wrote: »

emo72 wrote: »

Queuing through the night. A couple of hundred young kids. To put a deposit on a 3 bed semi for300,000. The next batch of houses released from the developer would be 350,000. These people are not greedy.that's all that was available.

I get feeling that there is a lot of revisionism going on in Ireland. These people were not stupid either. Everyone looking back saying I would never had signed up to that. A lot of people had no choice. Everyone including government, media, friends, family was saying its the right thing to do.

They had a choice.

I and thousands of others could have bought, I was called stingy, tight etc because I had no interest in buying.

My father told me a long time ago, that if you can't buy it in cash you can't afford, as god only knows what is around the next corner.

I drive a 02 car, because it's all the cash I had to spare and I am renting so I can build up savings over the next 10 years to buy a house for cash.

Fair play mate, and its great that you now have the opportunity to save for 10 years to buy a house outright for cash. Hopefully the country will be recovering by then.

blackwhite · 13-03-2012 03:58PM

smash wrote: »

You don't need assets, the debt is still in your name. Don't pay, go to prison.

Go to prison? I would have thought filing for bankruptcy might be a more reasonable option

smash · 13-03-2012 04:01PM

Faolchu wrote: »

right i didnt actually say it, you assumed i said it :rolleyes: so maybe nect time dont go making statements about what i "said" when clearly i didnt actually say it. the implication that i said "everyone" over extended was your mistake not mine. it could easily be implied that i meant some people which given my further comments is more likely the case,

I didn't assume you said it. I said you implied it, and you did. Then you went on to say "some people" afterwards.

Captain Darling · 13-03-2012 04:02PM

Drumpot wrote: »

I love reading some of these kinds of threads....

Well said!

wotaccent · 13-03-2012 04:04PM

I cannot understand why some posters are telling the OP to stop whingeing, etc. He isn't whingeing about having a mortgage, but rather that one bank was forced to reduce rates while another wasn't. Did PTSB refuse any taxpayer bailout, unlike AIB? It's like two public servants, both doing the same job, same grade, same hours, but work in different departments. Then one gets a pay rise while the other doesn't, even though one doesn't produce any more or any less than the other. I suppose that would be considered just, too.

Giving out to people who bought during the boom helps no-one, except maybe the egos of those who do give out. People bought for their own reasons. And the vast majority did so after being assured by their own advisors/banks that the property they were looking at was worth the price and that they could afford it. Not everyone 'cooked the books' and at the time they probably could, anyway. If experts such as bankers didn't see it coming, as they declare, how could the ordinary man in the street?

And no-one is still any the wiser about a possible answer to the OP's query.

emo72 · 13-03-2012 04:09PM

gurramok wrote: »

emo72 wrote: »

Queuing through the night. A couple of hundred young kids. To put a deposit on a 3 bed semi for300,000. The next batch of houses released from the developer would be 350,000. These people are not greedy.that's all that was available..

Were these houses made of gold??!

They were not some people desperate for a home, they already had a roof over their heads in some shape or form. They had an alternative called rent but turned their nose down at 'loser renters'.

Rent was between 1000/1500 a month for average house.
Remember as house prices increased so did rental income. Can we at least agree on that?

Social housing had huge waiting lists. Young couple with no kids? No chance! Do you agree with this ? Just trying to see if we have any common ground here gurramok ?

So what were the options for a young couple wanting to get on with their lives. Simple, buy or live with your parents. No matter what way I look at it there was no great choices.

Not having a go at you mate. Ad I say this doesn't affect me directly. But indirectly it affects everyone.

gurramok · 13-03-2012 04:10PM

wotaccent wrote: »

If experts such as bankers didn't see it coming, as they declare, how could the ordinary man in the street?

You seriously have to ask?

Bankers get paid to get as many suckers as possible and ride off into the sunset with that gold plated bonus and pension. Profit is their motive and vested interest.
The ordinary man just wants a roof over their head. What happened was the ordinary man treated the banker as a friend rather as a businessman who sells. The ordinary man also forgot what the word value meant, ya know that thing our grannies taught us.

Faolchu · 13-03-2012 04:15PM

smash wrote: »

I didn't assume you said it. I said you implied it, and you did. Then you went on to say "some people" afterwards.

i never implied it, you implied that i implied "everyone" in my original post. teh fact remains that there are people out there that over extended themselves and i personally have no sympathy for them

wotaccent · 13-03-2012 04:20PM

gurramok wrote: »

You seriously have to ask?

Bankers get paid to get as many suckers as possible and ride off into the sunset with that gold plated bonus and pension. Profit is their motive and vested interest.
The ordinary man just wants a roof over their head. What happened was the ordinary man treated the banker as a friend rather as a businessman who sells. The ordinary man also forgot what the word value meant, ya know that thing our grannies taught us.

I disagree. The ordinary person expected to be treated professionally by a professional. Not be conned by a conman.

gurramok · 13-03-2012 04:21PM

emo72 wrote: »

Rent was between 1000/1500 a month for average house.
Remember as house prices increased so did rental income. Can we at least agree on that?

Yes, for a short period. They came down then at about the same time house prices started to fall.

emo72 wrote: »

Social housing had huge waiting lists. Young couple with no kids? No chance! Do you agree with this ? Just trying to see if we have any common ground here gurramok ?

Yes and still is in some cases.

emo72 wrote: »

So what were the options for a young couple wanting to get on with their lives. Simple, buy or live with your parents. No matter what way I look at it there was no great choices.

Not having a go at you mate. Ad I say this doesn't affect me directly. But indirectly it affects everyone.

Rent until you buy. If it took 3 yrs, so be it. A mortgage was around your neck for 25-40yrs at the time so 3 yrs is small fry. Rent for these people could of been a temporary option but they jumped into buying beyond their means before thinking.

pickarooney · 13-03-2012 04:24PM

emo72 wrote: »

So what were the options for a young couple wanting to get on with their lives. Simple, buy or live with your parents.

Or rent, save up and if you really, really have to buy a house, do so when you can actually afford it.

Big Nasty · 13-03-2012 04:28PM

Bad Panda wrote: »

I could really do without that 'USC' charge on my pay cheque at the moment.

I wasn't irresponsible. I didn't borrow more than I could afford for a property that's worth a tin of tuna in a cardboard box estate (not saying that's where you live!) - I wasn't trying to keep up with Jones'.

But yeah, you're the one who's being treated unfairly!

I pay the USC charge, I pay the extra 2% VAT, I pay the extra 30/40c per litre in fuel, I contribute to the government coiffers and bank bail-outs. I don't like it but I do it just like everyone else every other tax payer.

The only thing I have a beef with here and what this thread is supposed to be about is the extra 2% on top of all that that TSB is making me pay. That and nothing else.

wotaccent wrote: »

I cannot understand why some posters are telling the OP to stop whingeing, etc. He isn't whingeing about having a mortgage, but rather that one bank was forced to reduce rates while another wasn't. Did PTSB refuse any taxpayer bailout, unlike AIB? It's like two public servants, both doing the same job, same grade, same hours, but work in different departments. Then one gets a pay rise while the other doesn't, even though one doesn't produce any more or any less than the other. I suppose that would be considered just, too.

Giving out to people who bought during the boom helps no-one, except maybe the egos of those who do give out. People bought for their own reasons. And the vast majority did so after being assured by their own advisors/banks that the property they were looking at was worth the price and that they could afford it. Not everyone 'cooked the books' and at the time they probably could, anyway. If experts such as bankers didn't see it coming, as they declare, how could the ordinary man in the street?

And no-one is still any the wiser about a possible answer to the OP's query.

Exactly!;)

Faolchu · 13-03-2012 04:33PM

MCMLXXV wrote: »

The only thing I have a beef with here and what this thread is supposed to be about it the extra 2% on top of all that that TSB is making me pay. That and nothing else.

simple answer to why ptsb are making you pay. the contract you signed at the time of drawing down your mortgage states that your interest rate will be at a certain percentage, that interest rate will be variable/fixed depending on what you signed up for and applies for a certain number of years. does that answer the question?

now what is PTSB charging a different rate to AIB? different companys charge different rates. does that answer that question?

why have the government forced AIB to drop interest rates and not forced PTSB? i could be wrong but it might be because PTSB didnt get a bail out or maybe something to do with the size of the governments holding in ptsb. i recall something like that buit cant remember which it was.

hope that answered your question.

Big Nasty · 13-03-2012 04:36PM

Faolchu wrote: »

why have the government forced AIB to drop interest rates and not forced PTSB?

I really should have made this the thread title - in fact I think I will now.;)

MidlandsM · 13-03-2012 04:36PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Unfortunately you're not alone. The cúnts have sold us all out. :mad:

yes, FF - total cnuts.

gremha · 13-03-2012 04:38PM

I've read these types of threads on here for a long time & there's two distinct sides. The ones who have trouble paying & are looking for assistance & the ones that didn't buy & are all smug about it.

Here's the thing, if the ones who can't pay, won't, what's going to happen ?

Well for a start there's be mass default. it's building right now, it's probably another couple of years away but it's building. What will happen then is the government will be forced to step in then & the smug ones now are going to end up helping out because we're going to have more increased taxes etc.

People were persuaded to buy in the boom, by the very government who's ignoring them right now.

If the government had made it a condition of the 100b bailout that the banks had to reduce their mortgage rates, people would have more money to inject into the economy & we probably wouldn't be in the mess we're in, but that wasn't done & it was a free payday for the banks.

A very close friend of mine is in borderline difficulty. He's been unemployed for eighteen months, His business failed & he paid off all his creditors. Because he was self employed (& employed two people) he's not entitled to social welfare. He'd bought an apartment as an investment & when the mortgage started outstripping the rent he was subsidising it, he never made anything on the rent received, it paid for the mortgage & the management fees, then just the mortgage, then less than the mortgage, now it covers about half the mortgage. He & his wife used their own money to subsidise it until it was no longer manageable & they had to stop.

The bank now ring him every four weeks asking him what he plans to do to clear the money owed & he's told them right now there's nothing he can do as he's trying to get a new business off the ground.

They lowered his home mortgage payments & called him to tell him he could now pay more off the investment property (at a higher rate). He went nuts at this & told them that there was no connection between the two mortgages apart from the fact they were both in his name & he needs to protect his family home because of his kids, so they restored it & he's started to slip further into debt.

About nine months ago we were having a pint & he confessed that he'd been trying to think of a way of having an accidental death so that his insurance would kick in & the family would be ok. Thankfully he said it to me, I was able to get him to the right people to speak with & he's now on the road to recovery.

He's now of the opinion that if they took his home, there's nothing he can do about it so he's prepared to let it go. They can peruse him all they like, he hasn't got anything.

The banks don't want to be repossessing property because what are they going to do with it? They do need to start talking to people & being sympathetic. The old "Computer says no" attitude has to go. People's lives are at risk.

My friend was an employer & paid a lot of taxes, he gets nothing from the state. He paid a lot of interest on his mortgage, they won't talk to him about lowering the rates he's paying. He wants to start again & is really trying, but is receiving no assistance despite the fact he folded his business owing nobody & helping find the staff he had to let go new positions.

I know there's people taking the proverbial all the time, but it's a disgrace that a hard working man could be driven to suicide when he's contributed so much.

The most important thing to come out of it was the realisation that he didn't have the problem. The bank did.

Gurgle · 13-03-2012 04:42PM

MCMLXXV wrote: »

the extra 2% on top of all that that TSB is making me pay.

Getting back to that: Your loan is more than the value of your property, you can't move to another lender so they hit you with a 'bend over' premium on your interest rate.

They could justify it by saying that your loan is a high risk as its at least partially unsecured and therefore you pay more for the service.

Moral of the story: The bank is not your friend.

There is light at the end of the tunnel. One way or another you will eventually be in positive equity, at which time you'll move your mortgage to whoever is giving the best deal and never give PTSB the time of day again. Hang in there. (Oh, and suck it up and pay your damn bills

)

dr.bollocko · 13-03-2012 04:43PM

Captain Darling wrote: »

Hmmm, i love the knee jerk 'no one was holding a gun to your head' after hours response.

A lot of these people are young couples who, as has been the tradition here, wanted to buy a property to start and raise their family in. They didnt necessarily buy a massive house but they paid over the odds for it without having a crystal ball to see the bubble burst.

The majority of people that are in this trouble are young families not some fcuking lunatic property speculators.

The government failed to regulate the banking sector who were firing out mortgages willy nilly and a lot of people got caught in this who were genuinely just trying to set up a life for their family.

Its just a sad state of affairs. Typical AH response though, people are living in poverty because government policy and regulation of our financial affairs was criminally neglected. Thats where all the ire should be directed.

What's really strange is the thread is not meant to be about this at all.

The problem is one bank gets a government request to have interest rates at X whereas another has no such mandate and as a result its interest rates are much higher.

wotaccent wrote: »

I cannot understand why some posters are telling the OP to stop whingeing, etc. He isn't whingeing about having a mortgage, but rather that one bank was forced to reduce rates while another wasn't. Did PTSB refuse any taxpayer bailout, unlike AIB? It's like two public servants, both doing the same job, same grade, same hours, but work in different departments. Then one gets a pay rise while the other doesn't, even though one doesn't produce any more or any less than the other. I suppose that would be considered just, too.

Giving out to people who bought during the boom helps no-one, except maybe the egos of those who do give out. People bought for their own reasons. And the vast majority did so after being assured by their own advisors/banks that the property they were looking at was worth the price and that they could afford it. Not everyone 'cooked the books' and at the time they probably could, anyway. If experts such as bankers didn't see it coming, as they declare, how could the ordinary man in the street?

And no-one is still any the wiser about a possible answer to the OP's query.

The majority of posters appear to have generally speaking completely missed the point.

Why have the govt forced AIB to drop interest rates and not PTSB?

Comments