Pensioners evicted from their home today!!

Monty Burnz · 22-04-2012 01:48PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'm sure that if some senior deposit-holder customers at the bank sat in at the loan interviews, the situation would have been completely different.

Loan Manager "Of course you can have the 100% loan, sign here".

Deposit-holder "Hang on a minute, you're not pissing my money away on this old guy, I'll never get it back, no-one's signing anything, fuck off!"

Unfortunately, it's been a long time since their lending was funded by customer deposits. That certainly would have tempered property price inflation.

Monty Burnz · 22-04-2012 01:49PM

battle_hardend wrote: »

pensioners , pensioners , pensioners , you make sure to include that term and all the emotional connotations it carries in every post

Well, there was only one pensioner. The woman involved is only a year older than the Taoiseach. Didn't stop the press calling the 'pensioners' every time to make the story more sexy.

jmayo · 22-04-2012 01:51PM

Justice for the individual wrote: »

And we are bailing out the banks. So do the banks have no obligation to pay back their debts. They are well aware that they will always be protected by our gullible governments, whoever they may be. They know that they can redeem the money from us, and nobody protests. This man and his wife are bearing the brunt of peoples frustrations. Instead they should be aiming their anger and comments towards the real instigators - excessive lending by the financial institutions and soft regulation by government agencies because of the easy availability of stamp duty money from the unfortunate borrowers.

Waffle ehh bullsh*t waffle ... eh excuses...

Justice for the individual wrote: »

We are taking our eye off the ball, and this is a distraction from the heavy financial burden being put on the Irish people by our government to protect the European model.

Nobody is paying back Mr. Kelly's debts. He has collateral - his properties, so the money owed can be redeemed.

Probably pretty incorrect information.
We the Irish taxpayers are on the hook for mr kelly's loans, because those loans are from two different banks that are now owned by us.
And because the loans are from different institutions the securitising property on one banks loans cannot be used to pay off the loans of the other bank.

And even if all the property was sold in this market it is probably unlikely that it would repay all his debts.

Justice for the individual wrote: »

Lets not focus on this one particular case, but instead concentrate on how policies by successive governments encouraged people to take chances and go for bigger and bigger borrowings, leading to the scenario and indignity of a couple being forced out of their family home.

All fine, but lets not get myopic and disregard some fookers trying to pull the p*** this week. :rolleyes:

Justice for the individual wrote: »

We should all be ashamed of ourselves, the individuals who carried out the eviction, and ourselves for standing idly by.

And ffs.
Yeah I am ashamed alright.
I am ashamed that there are class A eejits in this day and age still making excuses for people who make stupid greedy decisions and then even worse have the gall to try to dump the results on the rest of us.

Justice for the individual wrote: »

People like Mr. Kelly make mistakes and they cannot be pilloried for this. Failure is not a disgrace.

No but trying to dump that failure on the rest of us fooking is.

true wrote: »

did they commit any crime or break any law? They worked hard, sold their businesses in Germany and invested in the Irish economy...

No sunshine they invested in Irish property, not the Irish economy.

When the fook are people going to cop on that investing in property does not equal a real investment in the economy ?
Hell there investments finished off our true economy so rather than doing it good they helped foook it up.

battle_hardend wrote: »

even mr kelly was ninety ... the kellys have and had ample security , they are by any measure , well off people

Just on paper.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Possibly the most interesting Irish story all week, and not even a mention of it in the Sunday Independent today.

What agenda do they have?

What the hell are you doing reading that rag ?

true wrote: »

the banks and regulator were supposed to be experts. They should have known that by selling multi million euro mortgages to pensioners the system would come crashing down, as it did.

And the kellys should have known something too. :rolleyes:

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Didn't see it in the printed version. I could be wrong of course and missed it.

Jesus H C.
Not alone do you read it you buy the printed copy.
And I thought you were savy even if you had a poor taste in political hereos. :rolleyes:

battle_hardend · 22-04-2012 01:53PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well, there was only one pensioner. The woman involved is only a year older than the Taoiseach. Didn't stop the press calling the 'pensioners' every time to make the story more sexy.

true is focusing on the fact that mr kelly is a pensioner in every post , its a loaded term in this instance , it implies that the rules should be different for pensioners when it comes to borrowing money , a lot of people in ireland buy into the idea that all pensioners are inherently vulnerable and penniless , while its clear that the kellys are not poor , true is determined to prove that they were vulnerable

mbur · 22-04-2012 01:54PM

While Mr Kenny described the Kellys' situation as "peculiar", Mr Noonan was far more direct and critical in his comments, saying: "The Government has pledged, insofar as possible, to keep people in their own homes. We have not pledged to keep people in 21 different homes and we must distinguish between people who can't pay and people who won't pay."

-(from the indo artice linked above)-

Of course one day we will all have 21 homes and the socialist mantrae will have to be rewritten.

hondasam · 22-04-2012 01:55PM

Justice for the individual wrote: »

leading to the scenario and indignity of a couple being forced out of their family home. We should all be ashamed of ourselves, the individuals who carried out the eviction, and ourselves for standing idly by. People like Mr. Kelly make mistakes and they cannot be pilloried for this. Failure is not a disgrace.

I for one am not one bit ashamed, it's time people here started to take responsibility for their own actions. No one held a gun to their heads and made them keep borrowing money and re mortgaging their houses.
I would not consider it the family home this is another line they keep singing.
Failure is not a disgrace but expecting everyone else to take the blame for your own bad judgement is.

Monty Burnz · 22-04-2012 01:58PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Possibly the most interesting Irish story all week, and not even a mention of it in the Sunday Independent today.

What agenda do they have?

Obviously the Sindo have decided that the Kelly case - initially championed - is now harmful to their agenda of 'debt forgiveness for all' (especially all journalists). Hence they have dropped it like a hot potato.

The Independent and the Sindo are massively cynical rags.

jmayo · 22-04-2012 03:58PM

battle_hardend wrote: »

true is focusing on the fact that mr kelly is a pensioner in every post , its a loaded term in this instance , it implies that the rules should be different for pensioners when it comes to borrowing money , a lot of people in ireland buy into the idea that all pensioners are inherently vulnerable and penniless , while its clear that the kellys are not poor , true is determined to prove that they were vulnerable

Oh be very careful bringing up the pensioner angle.
I got lambasted for specifically not mentioning that it is only some pensioners that are different.
The gas thing is that those famous protests about medical cards for all over 70s or over 60 somethings were actually also helping the likes of the kellys.

People like the Kellys may be pensioners, but they bear as close a resemblance to the real vulnerable pensioner as I do to bill gates. :rolleyes:
And the usual suspects this week backed them up just because they happen to have the tag of pensioner. :mad:

It is the same thing about all Gardaí doing a hardworking job for us risking life and limb or all nurses being the descendants of Florence Nightingales.
It simply isn't true and the useless feckless wasteful eejits in those professions slide by, because they are protected both by unions and the hardworking colleagues who refuse to speak out.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Obviously the Sindo have decided that the Kelly case - initially championed - is now harmful to their agenda of 'debt forgiveness for all' (especially all journalists). Hence they have dropped it like a hot potato.

The Independent and the Sindo are massively cynical rags.

It is not jsut the sindo that is really pedalling the bailout for mortgage defaulters.
RTE is at it morning noon and night. :mad:

Oh and an interesting thing about journos is that a fair few of them got nice handy mortgages from none other than INBS and fingers fingelton who was well known for cultivating close contact with not alone politicans but media types as well.

There are a lot of people in real trouble with their mortgages but there are also a significant once well off community of get rich quick merchants who invested and speculated in property and are now in real trouble.
This was the same brigade that rattled their sabres when section 23/section 50 grants were threatened.
These types are not just the "johnny made good" builders, but often members of the professions and people involved in the media world.
How many solicitors have we heard of losing big on property ?
How much did old Gaybo lose in his property investment ?
It wasn't a conincidence he made a come back and has anyone noticed his old colleague Mike Murphy, another property speculator, is now back on our screens.
How much did shane filan and his family lose again ?
For every one we hear of there are probably many more in the wings.

These people have the capability and contacts to try to influence public opinion.

jluv · 22-04-2012 04:19PM

The only uninvited people there the day of the eviction were those there to evict the Kellys. The Kellys called the guards, the wailing widow in the backround and the person recording didn't just " happen" to be there. Very orchestrated IMO. Part of a plan that we were supposed to swallow perhaps?

battle_hardend · 22-04-2012 04:23PM

jmayo wrote: »

Oh be very careful bringing up the pensioner angle.
I got lambasted for specifically not mentioning that it is only some pensioners that are different.
The gas thing is that those famous protests about medical cards for all over 70s or over 60 somethings were actually also helping the likes of the kellys.

People like the Kellys may be pensioners, but they bear as close a resemblance to the real vulnerable pensioner as I do to bill gates. :rolleyes:
And the usual suspects this week backed them up just because they happen to have the tag of pensioner. :mad:

It is the same thing about all Gardaí doing a hardworking job for us risking life and limb or all nurses being the descendants of Florence Nightingales.
It simply isn't true and the useless feckless wasteful eejits in those professions slide by, because they are protected both by unions and the hardworking colleagues who refuse to speak out.

It is not jsut the sindo that is really pedalling the bailout for mortgage defaulters.
RTE is at it morning noon and night. :mad:

Oh and an interesting thing about journos is that a fair few of them got nice handy mortgages from none other than INBS and fingers fingelton who was well known for cultivating close contact with not alone politicans but media types as well.

There are a lot of people in real trouble with their mortgages but there are also a significant once well off community of get rich quick merchants who invested and speculated in property and are now in real trouble.
This was the same brigade that rattled their sabres when section 23/section 50 grants were threatened.
These types are not just the "johnny made good" builders, but often members of the professions and people involved in the media world.
How many solicitors have we heard of losing big on property ?
How much did old Gaybo lose in his property investment ?
It wasn't a conincidence he made a come back and has anyone noticed his old colleague Mike Murphy, another property speculator, is now back on our screens.
How much did shane filan and his family lose again ?
For every one we hear of there are probably many more in the wings.

These people have the capability and contacts to try to influence public opinion.

us irish do cling to our carracatures , guards , nurses , pensioners = living saints

bankers = lucifer himself

Latchy · 22-04-2012 04:27PM

jluv wrote: »

The only uninvited people there the day of the eviction were those there to evict the Kellys. The Kellys called the guards, the wailing widow in the backround and the person recording didn't just " happen" to be there. Very orchestrated IMO. Part of a plan that we were supposed to swallow perhaps?

As much of an insult to the Intelligence of the ordinary average person then anything when all the facts about this couple came out and people quickly realised it wasn't such a black and white story at all .

Unrealistic · 22-04-2012 06:34PM

true wrote: »

not if the loans on the 20 properties greatly exceed their value, which is likely.

Nope. Read the story in the Irish Times. It is clear that, when the Kelly's bought their Killiney home in 2004, they had a low level of combined borrowings against the value of their BTL portfolio. They would have been a safe bet as far as INBS were concerned, borrowing a low multiple (60%ish) on the Killiney home that could be covered by significant unencumbered passive income from their BTL portfolio that did not depend on Mr. Kelly's ability to continue earning a 9-5 wage. They did a major re-mortgaging of the the BTL portfolio with a different bank in 2007, so that portfolio is now probably in negative equity taking as combined unit, but in 2004 they would have been a clean and safe prospect.

mbur · 22-04-2012 06:48PM

Unrealistic wrote: »

Nope. Read the story in the Irish Times. It is clear that, when the Kelly's bought their Killiney home in 2004, they had a low level of combined borrowings against the value of their BTL portfolio. They would have been a safe bet as far as INBS were concerned, borrowing a low multiple (60%ish) on the Killiney home that could be covered by significant unencumbered passive income from their BTL portfolio that did not depend on Mr. Kelly's ability to continue earning a 9-5 wage. They did a major re-mortgaging of the the BTL portfolio with a different bank in 2007, so that portfolio is now probably in negative equity taking as combined unit, but in 2004 they would have been a clean and safe prospect.

What about the 2007 dig? Just shopping around or getting furthur into hock?

true · 22-04-2012 08:49PM

Unrealistic wrote: »

, but in 2004 they would have been a clean and safe prospect.

if you were a banker in 2004, or 2007, would you have lent a couple approaching retirement age a couple of million to buy a house, when they had no credible way of repaying that as well as multiple other loans?

if you would have, you were as good as the other bwankers, and its no wonder the banking and property system came crashing down. Maybe you are a banker? Did you get to keep you banking bonuses and pension? Of course you did.

lividduck · 22-04-2012 08:53PM

true wrote: »

if you were a banker in 2004, or 2007, would you have lent a couple approaching retirement age a couple of million to buy a house, when they had no credible way of repaying that as well as multiple other loans?

if you would have, you were as good as the other bwankers, and its no wonder the banking and property system came crashing down. Maybe you are a banker? Did you get to keep you banking bonuses and pension? Of course you did.

Calm down Mr Kelly

true · 22-04-2012 08:58PM

I am calm but I am not Mr. Kelly

mbur · 22-04-2012 09:04PM

true wrote: »

if you were a banker in 2004, or 2007, would you have lent a couple approaching retirement age a couple of million to buy a house, when they had no credible way of repaying that as well as multiple other loans?

if you would have, you were as good as the other bwankers, and its no wonder the banking and property system came crashing down. Maybe you are a banker? Did you get to keep you banking bonuses and pension? Of course you did.

Don't worry about the 2004 deal with INBS. that looks pretty sound. It's the 2007 deal that was the killer, and that wasn't an Irish Bank at all at all. AFAIK

true · 22-04-2012 09:16PM

mbur wrote: »

It's the 2007 deal that was the killer, and that wasn't an Irish Bank at all at all. AFAIK

They probably had Irish staff working for them, who made the crazy decision to sell a mortgage to the pensioners.
if it was not an Irish bank then the Irish taxpayer is not picking up the tab for the banks losses, as some posters have claimed.
The bank did not make such unprudent lending decisions before or since...

Monty Burnz · 22-04-2012 09:22PM

true wrote: »

They probably had Irish staff working for them, who made the crazy decision to sell a mortgage to the pensioners.

Why was the decision crazy? They are getting the money back, are they not?

And they lent to A pensioner, not 'pensioners'. You have been corrected on this already, why do you deliberately mislead?

micropig · 22-04-2012 09:23PM

true wrote: »

They probably had Irish staff working for them,

I blame the foreigners:D

true · 22-04-2012 09:27PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why was the decision crazy?
because mis-selling and crazy lending has damaged badly the economy, financial markets and property market.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They are getting the money back, are they not?

no, probably not, given their portfolio is in negative equity and after they pay for eviction costs etc. Thats why the banks are bust

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And they lent to A pensioner, not 'pensioners'. You have been corrected on this already,

not that I know of, but I may not have read the entire thread

Monty Burnz wrote: »

why do you deliberately mislead?

I do not. The bank would probably have lent to other pensioners besides the Kellys.

Monty Burnz · 22-04-2012 09:32PM

true wrote: »

no, probably not, given their portfolio is in negative equity and after they pay for eviction costs etc.

This is an assumption on your part. I imagine that between their 20 other properties and 100% ownership of the 5 bed in Killiney, the gap will be covered.

true wrote: »

not that I know of, but I may not have read the entire thread

>Facelpalm<

true wrote: »

I do not. The bank would probably have lent to other pensioners besides the Kellys.

So stop referring to 'pensioners' in this case and find an actual example of what you are talking about instead?

CiaranC · 22-04-2012 09:51PM

Dont waste your breath, true is a troll, hes on another thread defending Margaret Thatcher as we speak, yet maintains that the state should bankroll the Kellys on this one.

Guy:Incognito · 22-04-2012 09:54PM

true wrote: »

no, probably not, given their portfolio is in negative equity and after they pay for eviction costs etc. Thats why the banks are bust

.

They gave them a €2m loan secured on a property worth , at the time, nearly €4m. I doubt any bank anywhere would see that as a bad investment when coupled with the fact the were obviously able to meet the repayments with their earnings at the time.

true · 22-04-2012 09:54PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I imagine that between their 20 other properties and 100% ownership of the 5 bed in Killiney, the gap will be covered.

To give you an example, if properties which together were worth 6 million are now only worth 3 or 4 million, and there are 5 million worth of mortgages on them, then the bankl is down 1 or 2 million ...and maybe a lot more after professional fees and costs are deducted.;)

Monty Burnz · 22-04-2012 09:55PM

CiaranC wrote: »

Dont waste your breath, true is a troll, hes on another thread defending Margaret Thatcher as we speak, yet maintains that the state should bankroll the Kellys on this one.

The signs were there alright. I never quite understood troll psychology. Most people get a kick out of making others feel good, a few get a kick out of making them feel bad. A bit sad, really.

true · 22-04-2012 10:02PM

mbur wrote: »

It's the 2007 deal that was the killer, and that wasn't an Irish Bank at all at all. AFAIK

CiaranC wrote: »

, yet maintains that the state should bankroll the Kellys on this one.

No I do not maintain the state should bankroll the Kellys. If its not an Irish bank which lent the money, there is no question of the Irish taxpayer bankrolling the Kellys.

Unrealistic · 22-04-2012 10:16PM

true wrote: »

if you were a banker in 2004, or 2007, would you have lent a couple approaching retirement age a couple of million to buy a house, when they had no credible way of repaying that as well as multiple other loans?

if you would have, you were as good as the other bwankers, and its no wonder the banking and property system came crashing down. Maybe you are a banker? Did you get to keep you banking bonuses and pension? Of course you did.

Did you even read what I posted. I'll type it again slowly and in smaller words and maybe the message will get through to you.

When a bank manager at INBS gave the loan to the Kellys in 2004 he would have known two key factors that would have given him comfort in taking a decision to issue the loan.

1) The couple had a property portfolio generating an income that was not dependent on the couple's ability to work. Even if they both became bedridden the property portfolio should still generate a substantial monthly income.
2) The amount of the loan was very low as a percentage of the overall value of the house. This was the time of 110% mortgages but this couple were only looking for less than 60%.

So a bank manager issuing that loan could be satisfied that the couple could continue to make the payments for the rest of their lives and that, if payments ever stopped coming in, either due to default or the death of both of the borrowers, the house could be sold and the bank would get its money back. That was a totally prudent loan.

How prudent the 2007 loan was is a different question. As mbur has pointed out just above we don't know whether it was a straight refinancing to get a better rate or whether it was an equity release scenario. If it was the former then it is most likely a prudent loan too as some of the loans had originally been issued in the nineties so the overall Loan To Value ratio of the portfolio was presumably relatively low. If it was the latter then it is less justifiable but that is not really relevant as it is not the issuer of the 2007 loans who repossessed their home but the (successor of) the issuer of the 2004 loan.

I'm sure there are many examples of imprudent lending in the last decade but based on the facts that we know the loan on which the Kellys defaulted, leading to them losing one of their houses, was not one of them.

As for me being a banker, I have to laugh. I think it is unlikely that there are many bank officers who were making mortgage decisions in the 2000s posting on here. On the other hand I think it is very likely that the type of people who borrowed to the hilt in the 2000s and are now looking for the rest of us to give them a handout are well represented on here. When I see someone coming along and repeating the same mantra again and again about evil bankers and absolving borrowers of any responsibility I naturally think they have some skin in the game themselves. I hate what the bankers and regulators did at least as much as you do (probably more seeing as it is obvious you don't have clear understanding of what actually happened), and I would really love to see some of them strung up by the balls, but that does not mean I think we should give free pass to everyone who borrowed recklessly.

Unrealistic · 22-04-2012 10:31PM

true wrote: »

if it was not an Irish bank then the Irish taxpayer is not picking up the tab for the banks losses, as some posters have claimed.

true wrote: »

No I do not maintain the state should bankroll the Kellys. If its not an Irish bank which lent the money, there is no question of the Irish taxpayer bankrolling the Kellys.

Christ on a bike. Do you really enjoy getting up on your high horse about subjects where you clearly don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about?

For the benefit of anyone else who has just come to this thread (not for your benefit; I'm done with you) the loan the Kellys took out to purchase their primary home was issued prudently by any normal standards and was from an Irish bank (INBS), which has been taken over by the tax payer, so failure to collect on that loan would mean a loss to the Irish taxpayer. It was on the basis of this loan that the house was repossessed last week. Failure to repossess and sell the house would have meant the Irish taxpayer bankrolling the Kellys. (Or rather bankrolling the Kellys even more than they €500k-$1m they have already squeezed out of us to date.) Separately the Kellys' property portfolio was financed by loans from a foreign bank (Bank of Scotland (Ireland)) the tax payer is not on the hook for that and no one has made any claim that they are.

true · 22-04-2012 11:24PM

Unrealistic wrote: »

The couple had a property portfolio generating an income that was not dependent on the couple's ability to work. Even if they both became bedridden the property portfolio should still generate a substantial monthly income.

but that income was needed to service loans, repairs, letting fees, expenses, etc on the property portfolio. Where was the income to come from to repay the multi million mortgage on the pensioners home? If they had that income do you not think they would have used it to pay the mortgage and avoid the stress of the past while, not to mention the discomfort of sleeping in a tent in April? If you were a pensioner who could affords a relatively newly taken out multi million euro mortgage, would you sleep in a tent? No, I don't think so either;)

Pensioners evicted from their home today!!

Comments