Local hotel owner praised for cancelling auction of family farm.

Zamboni · 27-04-2014 12:08PM

galwayrush wrote: »

I know, I said it was unfair that the bank can get 100% of their investment and the original owner can lost 100% of theirs, despite the banks share may only be a small % of the overall value.
If it was a limited company the bank may have to take the hit.

I am sure all this is covered in the contract the farmer willingly entered into at time of draw down.

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:09PM

galwayrush wrote: »

I know, I said it was unfair that the bank can get 100% of their investment and the original owner can lost 100% of theirs, despite the banks share may only be a small % of the overall value.
If it was a limited company the bank may have to take the hit.

The owner is free to find the money to buy the bank out any other way he likes. In the absence of that the property has to be sold though. Unless theres a big market for the back corner 10% of a farm or the upstairs portion of a house.

tritium · 27-04-2014 12:09PM

galwayrush wrote: »

Did the bank provide 100% of the money for the farm? If for eg, they provided 25 % of the value at the time, they should not be entitled to any more than 25% of the value now. Banks don't care about what a person puts into a place, they want it all.
Unfair.

You need to learn the difference betWeen debt and equity

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:11PM

Zamboni wrote: »

I am sure all this is covered in the contract the farmer willingly entered into at time of draw down.

Maybe he thought he was signing one of those freeman loan applications where everything is above board and legal till they don't want to pay, then all of a sudden the bank is a sham, the borrower isn't a legal entity, the "created money" he accepted doesn't exist and the contract isn't enforceable under maritime law.

osarusan · 27-04-2014 12:12PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The bank weren't making an investment though. They loaned someone money to be paid back.

That's an interesting one.

I'm not joking, but asking a genuine question here (albeit one that might highlight my lack of understanding): what's the practical difference between an investment and a loan?

In both cases a certain amount of money is parted with, in the belief/expectation that more than that amount will eventually be recouped.

The Backwards Man · 27-04-2014 12:12PM

Free nationwide exposure for doing something that makes sweet fcuk all difference in the long run.

Well played sir.

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:14PM

osarusan wrote: »

That's an interesting one.

I'm not joking, but asking a genuine question here: what's the practical difference between an investment and a loan?

In both cases a certain amount of money is parted with, in the belief/expectation that more than that amount will eventually be recouped.

The loan has to be paid back as per the details of the legally binding contract or the property is forfeited. Investing money is gambling and can all be lost.

osarusan · 27-04-2014 12:15PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The loan has to be paid back as per the details of the legally binding contract or the property is forfeited. Investing money is gambling and can all be lost.

I know that difference, but is a loan not just an investment with collateral?

Or is the presence or absence of specific and binding collareral what differentiates the two?

Zamboni · 27-04-2014 12:15PM

osarusan wrote: »

That's an interesting one.

I'm not joking, but asking a genuine question here (albeit one that might highlight my lack of understanding): what's the practical difference between an investment and a loan?

In both cases a certain amount of money is parted with, in the belief/expectation that more than that amount will eventually be recouped.

One is a contractual agreement.
The other is gambling.

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:20PM

osarusan wrote: »

I know that difference, but is a loan not just an investment with collateral?

Or is the presence or absence of specific and binding collareral what differentiates the two?

The bank are guaranteed their return. Either in the form of the payments or the property. They cant be left empty handed.

There is no guarantee of any return from gambling.

Woodville56 · 27-04-2014 12:23PM

Seems like the apologists for the banks are in the majority in this thread! The Richie Boucher supporters club up and about on this Sunday morning - thought ye guys would be on the golf course by now with your banker buddies and developer friends! We all pay taxes ya know but don't all carry around the same degree of self righteous indignation posted here !

Zamboni · 27-04-2014 12:28PM

Woodville56 wrote: »

Seems like the apologists for the banks are in the majority in this thread! The Richie Boucher supporters club up and about on this Sunday morning - thought ye guys would be on the golf course by now with your banker buddies and developer friends! We all pay taxes ya know but don't all carry around the same degree of self righteous indignation posted here !

Here is some light Sunday reading for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

You'll note the word - voluntary

shruikan2553 · 27-04-2014 12:29PM

Woodville56 wrote: »

Seems like the apologists for the banks are in the majority in this thread! The Richie Boucher supporters club up and about on this Sunday morning - thought ye guys would be on the golf course by now with your banker buddies and developer friends! We all pay taxes ya know but don't all carry around the same degree of self righteous indignation posted here !

Some of us read our contracts. I haven't found any that says if there is a bailout the contract is void.

tritium · 27-04-2014 12:30PM

Woodville56 wrote: »

Seems like the apologists for the banks are in the majority in this thread! The Richie Boucher supporters club up and about on this Sunday morning - thought ye guys would be on the golf course by now with your banker buddies and developer friends! We all pay taxes ya know but don't all carry around the same degree of self righteous indignation posted here !

Funny the amount of folks who go on about how they pay taxes as though it gives you a get out of jail card on paying your debts. Funny too how no one seems to have had this ethical dilemma with debt during the good times.

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:31PM

Woodville56 wrote: »

Seems like the apologists for the banks are in the majority in this thread! The Richie Boucher supporters club up and about on this Sunday morning - thought ye guys would be on the golf course by now with your banker buddies and developer friends! We all pay taxes ya know but don't all carry around the same degree of self righteous indignation posted here !

So fill us in as to why he shouldn't have to pay his mortgage.

hatrickpatrick · 27-04-2014 12:32PM

Bigcheeze wrote: »

He's not standing up to anything. He's doing what's best for his own business.

Ah, AH. So beautifully, predictably, reliably cynical.

tritium · 27-04-2014 12:32PM

osarusan wrote: »

That's an interesting one.

I'm not joking, but asking a genuine question here (albeit one that might highlight my lack of understanding): what's the practical difference between an investment and a loan?

In both cases a certain amount of money is parted with, in the belief/expectation that more than that amount will eventually be recouped.

There are several differences but essentially debt is low risk and relatively low (but secure) reward, equity is higher risk but gives you a stake in the asset and hence potentially much higher reward.

hatrickpatrick · 27-04-2014 12:33PM

tritium wrote: »

Funny the amount of folks who go on about how they pay taxes as though it gives you a get out of jail card on paying your debts. Funny too how no one seems to have had this ethical dilemma with debt during the good times.

When the people saved the banks' asses by paying THEIR debts, it hardly seems unreasonable to demand that they cut those people some slack.

hatrickpatrick · 27-04-2014 12:34PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Investing money is gambling and can all be lost.

*coughcoughbondholderscoughcough*

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:35PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When the people saved the banks' asses by paying THEIR debts, it hardly seems unreasonable to demand that they cut those people some slack.

I've paid plenty of tax and never taken out a mortgage. Is there a form I fill out or do I just search daft and pick out my free house?

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:36PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

*coughcoughbondholderscoughcough*

a relevant reason?

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:36PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When the people saved the banks' asses by paying THEIR debts, it hardly seems unreasonable to demand that they cut those people some slack.

Lets take the bank in question, BOI. Have we, the tax payer , got any return whatsoever from any money put in to BOI?

and what do you reckon happens if the banks wrote off every mortgage on their books tomorrow?

hatrickpatrick · 27-04-2014 12:37PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Im sure if they only own 25% (or any other amount)they'd be more than happy to have the money they are owed paid to them if that's the way the farmer wants to go. I have a feeling hes not offering them their money though.

What if he used to have that money, but now isn't earning it thanks to the economic clusterf*ck created by said banks? This is the reason the banks get no sympathy from so many people.

Woodville56 · 27-04-2014 12:39PM

tritium wrote: »

Funny the amount of folks who go on about how they pay taxes as though it gives you a get out of jail card on paying your debts. Funny too how no one seems to have had this ethical dilemma with debt during the good times.

I'm not using the fact that I like many others pay our taxes in the context you suggest ie as a get out of jail card. I use it in the context that as taxpayers we are all paying for the mismanagement of the banks, the reckless lending AND BORROWING too, yet I can see that not all mortgage arrears and debt write-down issues can be simplified down as black and white , as many posters here seem to believe ! You simply cannot tar all mortgage defaulters with the same brush , to do so is either being plain ignorant of the circumstances or playing to a populist gallery of self righteous "I'm all right Jack " types !

hatrickpatrick · 27-04-2014 12:40PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Lets take the bank in question, BOI. Have we, the tax payer , got any return whatsoever from any money put in to BOI?

Of course, sure we have this fine gentleman being paid an utterly ridiculous salary using our money!
http://m.rte.ie/news/touch//2014/0425/611719-boi-shareholders-voice-anger-at-agm/

and what do you reckon happens if the banks wrote off every mortgage on their books tomorrow?

Presumably they'd collapse, and good f*ckig riddance to them.

tritium · 27-04-2014 12:41PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When the people saved the banks' asses by paying THEIR debts, it hardly seems unreasonable to demand that they cut those people some slack.

You do realise that if banks let everyone default they go broke right? You do realise what that means for the shareholders in this case given the events of recent years?

BTW, why should all of the people (I.e. the shareholder collective) shoulder the burden for the small subset who don't want to honour contracts they voluntarily entered? Even if I'm unhappy at the bailouts, why would I want to give a second group the same free meal?

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:41PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What if he used to have that money, but now isn't earning it thanks to the economic clusterf*ck created by said banks? This is the reason the banks get no sympathy from so many people.

That's the risk he took when taking out the mortgage, its right there in the contract.

If the bank bought your house off you, but didn't have the money up front so you agreed theyd pay you a grand month till its paid off, but after a year they said "sorry, we've no money to pay you anymore, but we're keeping the house anyway", youd just say fair enough, yeah?

tritium · 27-04-2014 12:42PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course, sure we have this fine gentleman being paid an utterly ridiculous salary using our money!
http://m.rte.ie/news/touch//2014/0425/611719-boi-shareholders-voice-anger-at-agm/

Bank of Ireland is a private company with a relatively small stake held by the Irish government. How do you figure it's your money?

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:42PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course, sure we have this fine gentleman being paid an utterly ridiculous salary using our money!
http://m.rte.ie/news/touch//2014/0425/611719-boi-shareholders-voice-anger-at-agm/

Why don't you just answer the question?

BOI is a private company that's making money, they can pay him what they like. Maybe the government should sell the shares at what they bought them for, or would you rather they sell them at the current rate and make money? "our" money is worth more now because it was invested in BOI. If people don't pay their mortgages it will be worth this much ----> <

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Presumably they'd collapse, and good f*ckig riddance to them.

Ah , my mistake. I thought we were dealing with rational thinkers there for a minute.

Zamboni · 27-04-2014 12:43PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When the people saved the banks' asses by paying THEIR debts, it hardly seems unreasonable to demand that they cut those people some slack.

Two completely different sections of people there
1. Irish taxpayers
2. Irish people with unsustainable mortgages

Local hotel owner praised for cancelling auction of family farm.

Comments