# Impaired Loans



## Slater (20 Feb 2009)

It is reported that Irish banks are exposed to 60 billion impaired Loans. What does this mean assuming that it is correct ?


----------



## CCOVICH (20 Feb 2009)

It means that the book value/recoverable value of loans on their books is now worth €60bn less than they were last week/month/year.

Impairment


----------



## Slater (21 Feb 2009)

Thank you.


----------



## UptheDeise (21 Feb 2009)

So what  happens now? Does the taxpayer give these banks  more of our money?


----------



## valery (21 Feb 2009)

Donal O'Connor  Chairman Anglo expects some of the millions in loans to Directors and also 300 million of the loan to the "Golden Circle" will be written off.  Granted the shares which were bought are now worthless but why should the taxpayer bear this cost.  The directors of Anglo were paid very substantial figures during 2008 and they also have other business involvements.  Presumably the "Golden Circle" are also people of substantial worth.
Many people continue to pay back mortgages on properties that they have negative equity on.  They know that to just walk away could cause immense problems for their credit rating.  Why are these fat cats being treated differently?


----------



## SligoInvest (21 Feb 2009)

Here Here Valery
I cannot understand that because the collateral for theloan is gone that they dont have to pay back. If my house was in negative equity I still have to pay it all back. Im sure some of the golden circle have alterative means - let them pay over what they owe if they have other assets.


----------



## UptheDeise (21 Feb 2009)

They're is nothing that can be done about it now. If the banks accepted the shares as collateral and the collateral is now gone tough titty.

They've really screwed us. Why didn't they allow these useless banks go to the wall?


----------



## valery (21 Feb 2009)

Upthedeise, your posting suggests that collateral is the only recourse the Banks have.  In that case, if people walk away from houses in negative equity, and if the house was the sole collateral for the mortgage, then the Banks cannot pursue them them for the shortfall.
I think that is highly unlikely.


----------



## dewdrop (21 Feb 2009)

When lending was at its peak some borrowers would not accept a loan offer unless it was "without recourse". Of course it was up to the lender to decide whether to sanction on this basis. If say someone was buying a property for half million and only wanted a loan of say one hundred thousand you could see why it might be sanctioned against theou property only and without recourse to the assets of the borrower.


----------



## UptheDeise (21 Feb 2009)

valery said:


> Upthedeise, your posting suggests that collateral is the only recourse the Banks have. In that case, if people walk away from houses in negative equity, and if the house was the sole collateral for the mortgage, then the Banks cannot pursue them them for the shortfall.
> I think that is highly unlikely.


 
I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm saying is that the banks accepted the shares as collateral which they should never have done.

When this bank and all the others go to the wall I will throw a party.

Everyone invited, food provided bring your own booze.


----------

