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!"
battle_hardend wrote: » pensioners , pensioners , pensioners , you make sure to include that term and all the emotional connotations it carries in every post
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.
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.
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.
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.
Justice for the individual wrote: » People like Mr. Kelly make mistakes and they cannot be pilloried for this. Failure is not a disgrace.
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...
battle_hardend wrote: » even mr kelly was ninety ... the kellys have and had ample security , they are by any measure , well off people
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?
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.
oppenheimer1 wrote: » Didn't see it in the printed version. I could be wrong of course and missed it.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
true wrote: » not if the loans on the 20 properties greatly exceed their value, which is likely.
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.
Unrealistic wrote: » , but in 2004 they would have been a clean and safe prospect.
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.
mbur wrote: » It's the 2007 deal that was the killer, and that wasn't an Irish Bank at all at all. AFAIK
true wrote: » They probably had Irish staff working for them, who made the crazy decision to sell a mortgage to the pensioners.
true wrote: » They probably had Irish staff working for them,
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 wrote: » They are getting the money back, are they not?
Monty Burnz wrote: » And they lent to A pensioner, not 'pensioners'. You have been corrected on this already,
Monty Burnz wrote: » why do you deliberately mislead?
true wrote: » no, probably not, given their portfolio is in negative equity and after they pay for eviction costs etc.
true wrote: » not that I know of, but I may not have read the entire thread
true wrote: » I do not. The bank would probably have lent to other pensioners besides the Kellys.
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 .
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.
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.
CiaranC wrote: » , yet maintains that the state should bankroll the Kellys on this one.
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.
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.
