# Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to it!



## whizzbang (14 Jan 2010)

It doesn't matter that you owe more than it is worth, if you can pay, just suck it up!


----------



## canicemcavoy (14 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*



whizzbang said:


> It doesn't matter that you owe more than it is worth, if you can pay, just suck it up!


 
Naive talk. Next you'll be saying that disgraced bankers should pay back their loans. Or politicians should only be able to obtain property loans available to the rest of us. Where do you think you live - Scandinavia?


----------



## whizzbang (14 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*

Clearly I'm some sort of a capitalist nut who wants to grind Orphans up for sausage meat. but I do think that if you took someone's money and said you would pay it back, well, then, you should really pay it back.


----------



## Robin Banks (14 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*

But if you only bought it because of the implicit guarantee* that property prices could only go up, but then that guarantee was _somehow_ revoked by nassty Bear Stearns & Lehman Brothers - shurely you are entitled not only to stop paying for your magic money making machine/3 bed semi/shoebox apartment - but also to a full refund?

*not written down anywhere

there is some sort of weird personal accountability thing that certain people are now trying to invoke during this crisis which is making the whole thing worse. it's bad for confidence.


----------



## Knuttell (14 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*



whizzbang said:


> It doesn't matter that you owe more than it is worth, if you can pay, just suck it up!



Yep concur 100%,you were happy to borrow the money now pay it back ....simples!


----------



## Brianne (14 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*

Agree totally and if you and your mates with your super macho behaviour in the property world , the banking world, and the stock exchange have caused the world's economies to collapse, at least have some cojones now and take the hit. Those of us who all our life condemned this excess of capitalism have no problem admitting that we would never , ever have had the courage to take the risks you did. In fact , we were never that interested in money to that extent. You obviously were and took those risks, now we are paying the price for your reckless behaviour and frankly we couldn't care less if you and your ilk all over the world ended up with nothing.As my grandmother used to say , some people want to put their arms around the world,,,,,,,,,greed, unadulterated greed and don't give us baloney about achievements, how many of you would do what you did without the prospect of huge, not fair profit!!!


----------



## canicemcavoy (14 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*

I hope Brendan will include this in his submission.


----------



## z107 (14 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*

Ultimately, someone is going to have to pay for this debt. It can either be:
1. Taxpayers
2. The person who took out the loan
3. Other customers of the credit supplier

The debt won't simply disappear.
We are already being forced to hand money over to insolvent banks by the government.


----------



## glane31 (14 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*

+1


----------



## number7 (14 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*

The government promised to pay me €60k a year if they honour their word I will honour mine!!

I would be happy to continue paying the same % of my income in mortgage repayments as I was doing before the people who lent to me ballsd up the financial system.

Tongue in cheek really but normal rules dont really apply in the situation we find ourselves.


----------



## MadPad (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*

Debt settlement is such a misleading term for what is proposed.

Debt writeoffs or writedowns is whats proposed. Even that doesn't describe it properly; unless you have been someone who has had to take the hit and write off bad debts; a debt writeoff may feel like the easy way out... it is unless you're the guy writing off the debt.

The debts are not written off, they dont just disappear, with the debtor feeling good and the creditor no worse off -- the creditor probably owes others money and they have to pay --- someone always has to pay up. 

This proposal is classic "something for nothing" rubbish. Im sure some idiot will soon be describing it as a 'win-win' or some other phrase that was so noughties.... 

The mentality that was promoted on this site and in others during the boom has clearly not gone away... borrowing to invest, leveraging, etc. Everyone looking for a way to get a loan, buy something, sit back and wait and watch while others do the heavy lifting and make you rich.

The old fashioned boring advice of buy what you can afford to borrow and then clear the debt as soon as possible was ridiculed. 

So now we have the same people who cheerlead the property bubble, looking for 'debt settlement'.  An undo key for their investment decisions.. Ain't going to happen folks.. life doesnt come with an undo key. 

Those who wanted to borrow, sit back and watch others make you money will now get to spend a lifetime making the banksters money.  Its almost biblical.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: You promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*

Folks

Make sure that you share your wisdom and opinions with the Law Reform Commission. It's fine to rant away in the pub and online, but the LRC is asking for your opinions. This is your opportunity to actually influence the shape of Irish law. 

Most of their thinking on debt settlement is in relation to personal debt not related to housing and mortgages. 

The LRC will produce a report which will include draft legislation. 
You will be able to comment on the legislation as it goes through the Oireachtas, but you would be far more effective influencing the first draft. 

They will accept submission up to the end of January.

Brendan


----------



## z107 (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: You promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*

The Law Reform Commission have already made their mind up on what they are going to do. Submitting our opinions is futile (Unless you're CEO of a bank). This is simply a PR exercise.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: You promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*



umop3p!sdn said:


> The Law Reform Commission have already made their mind up on what they are going to do. Submitting our opinions is futile (Unless you're CEO of a bank). This is simply a PR exercise.



Have you even the slightest basis for making such a comment? 

Have you read their consultation paper or even part of it? 

Did you attend their seminar on the topic? 

One of the extraordinary things about the document is that it is undecided on many big issues. The biggest issue of all is mortgages and they have said very little on them.


----------



## whizzbang (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*



number7 said:


> The government promised to pay me €60k a year if they honour their word I will honour mine!!
> 
> I would be happy to continue paying the same % of my income in mortgage repayments as I was doing before the people who lent to me ballsd up the financial system.
> 
> Tongue in cheek really but normal rules dont really apply in the situation we find ourselves.



The rules do apply! Your promise to pay is not predicated on your continued employment at the same wage. You agree to take on the risk of there being any differential between the two and perhaps should take out insurance to cover yourself in this case. Its like saying "I'll pay my doctors bill so long as the bakers still pays my wages". You are basically saying you have no personal responsibility for your debt, it is your employers responsibility.

It was and still is each of our own personal responsibility to only take out loans that we could manage even if we lost a job for a few months or had a wage cut etc. If you took a loan that becomes unplayable if you have a salary cut of 25% then you took out too big a loan.


----------



## Latrade (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: You promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*



Brendan said:


> Have you even the slightest basis for making such a comment?
> 
> Have you read their consultation paper or even part of it?
> 
> ...


 
+1. 

The LRC's consultation paper should be the model for all future consultation documents on proposed legislation in my opinion.


----------



## micamaca (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

But isn't this why mortgage holders are so annoyed?  Developers took out huge sums too, took too high a risk. Banks took too high a risk by lending so much to developers. 

But it seems like the small fish who also took out too high loans are going to have to continue repaying their mortgages on properties with negative equity. On top of that every cent of taxpayers money is going into NAMA to bail out banks and developers. We can see the effects of NAMA already...no money for natural disasters, hospitals etc. Everywhere I look I see cut-backs, reductions in services and the semi-state sectors are increasing prices. Am I wrong?

You can hardly blame a normal human reaction asking why should we pay, when others, who borrowed more, are not paying.


----------



## callybags (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

No developers are being bailed out. they still owe every cent they borrowed.

The banks are being funded so our economy can continue to function.


----------



## whizzbang (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



callybags said:


> No developers are being bailed out. they still owe every cent they borrowed.
> 
> The banks are being funded so our economy can continue to function.



This is definitely the intention, but I think the public and media need to keep an eagle eye on this to ensure that they don't wriggle out of it.


----------



## canicemcavoy (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



callybags said:


> The banks are being funded so our economy can continue to function.


 
Including Anglo, you mean? Tell me how Anglo keeps our economy functioning - unless you count giving loans like jellybeans to developers and politicans.

NAMA's purpose is not to get banks lending - indeed, the ex-chairman of AIB has already said it will not have this effect. It's there to, quote, "put a floor on the property market".


----------



## whizzbang (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



micamaca said:


> But isn't this why mortgage holders are so annoyed?  Developers took out huge sums too, took too high a risk. Banks took too high a risk by lending so much to developers.
> 
> But it seems like the small fish who also took out too high loans are going to have to continue repaying their mortgages on properties with negative equity. On top of that every cent of taxpayers money is going into NAMA to bail out banks and developers. We can see the effects of NAMA already...no money for natural disasters, hospitals etc. Everywhere I look I see cut-backs, reductions in services and the semi-state sectors are increasing prices. Am I wrong?
> 
> You can hardly blame a normal human reaction asking why should we pay, when others, who borrowed more, are not paying.



Banks are being bailed out to ensure that all our wages or dole payments have some way of being distributed to us. To make sure that cash stays in the ATM, to make sure that your insurance payment goes through. Banks are very important to the economy and need to be maintained. That being said they should never have been allowed to get into this situation and the regulator has a lot to answer for. Also, bank directors or top management have no right to have their job saved unless there is literally no-one else who can do it. 

People at the top need to suffer for what they have done to this country. TDs, ministers, media lapdogs, bankers, property developers, etc. those who were wreakless and irresponsible need to feel the majority of this pain. These people should not be allowed to hold onto the money they personally hoarded during the boom, this includes inflated pensions etc, they should pay it all back and start from zero again. They risked it and lost it, they should not have a net benefit from their irresponsibility. Otherwise we will just have the same problem in the next book where the cheer leaders know they will get to keep whatever they manage to get for themselves when the bust comes.

Anyone who took a gamble should have to stand by their debt and pay it all back. Nobody should be let off because "t didn't work out". Paddy Power wouldn't give your money back if the horse you backed didn't come in.


----------



## z107 (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



> No developers are being bailed out. they still owe every cent they borrowed.
> 
> The banks are being funded so our economy can continue to function.


Owing money and actually paying it back are two quite different things. I'd also disagree that the Irish economy is 'functioning'. It's collapsing.

in response to this:


> Have you even the slightest basis for making such a comment?
> 
> Have you read their consultation paper or even part of it?
> 
> Did you attend their seminar on the topic?


No is the answer.
I'm basing my opinion on past events. We weren't consulted over NAMA or the bank guarantee. I'm very cynical when it comes to such organisations, and what their priorities are. I could be wrong of course...


----------



## whizzbang (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



canicemcavoy said:


> Including Anglo, you mean? Tell me how Anglo keeps our economy functioning - unless you count giving loans like jellybeans to developers and politicans.
> 
> NAMA's purpose is not to get banks lending - indeed, the ex-chairman of AIB has already said it will not have this effect. It's there to, quote, "put a floor on the property market".



Anglo should never have been saved. It wasn't of structural important to the main economy. It was saved for political reasons more than economic ones.

AIB, BOI, etc were the ones that needed saving as they have the majority of current and business accounts.


----------



## micamaca (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



whizzbang said:


> Anglo should never have been saved. It wasn't of structural important to the main economy. It was saved for political reasons more than economic ones.
> 
> AIB, BOI, etc were the ones that needed saving as they have the majority of current and business accounts.



I would agree with that. But is there ever going to be a change of political willpower in this country? We saw the anger at the BOI shareholders meeting...not enough change of management at the top and on the board. The new financial regulator is calling for an inquiry and been ignored by the government, who should be pulling their head out of the sand, admitting they did very badly and make a fresh new start.

I agree that developers should be made to feel more pain. Are any of them feeling the pain as badly as ordinary people who are struggling to make ends meet every month? I sincerely doubt it. I'm sure they are feeling some pain, but it hardly compares to what ordinary joes are going through. So again, I don't blame people for wondering why are they the ones who have to pay and pay again. Tis very bleak.


----------



## whizzbang (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



micamaca said:


> I would agree with that. But is there ever going to be a change of political willpower in this country? We saw the anger at the BOI shareholders meeting...not enough change of management at the top and on the board. The new financial regulator is calling for an inquiry and been ignored by the government, who should be pulling their head out of the sand, admitting they did very badly and make a fresh new start.
> 
> I agree that developers should be made to feel more pain. Are any of them feeling the pain as badly as ordinary people who are struggling to make ends meet every month? I sincerely doubt it. I'm sure they are feeling some pain, but it hardly compares to what ordinary joes are going through. So again, I don't blame people for wondering why are they the ones who have to pay and pay again. Tis very bleak.



Absolutely, I wonder if this downturn will lead to a serious review of people's voting habits. Or will they still think "A sure I always vote for X"

I do think they public are getting angrier though, so that may lead to some change up top.


----------



## RIAD_BSC (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

It is easy to rant away about negative equity, politicians and banks, but perhaps people should look at the issues here. Widespread negative equity is a massive drag on an economy, and so it needs to be addressed somehow. If negative equity stops people from trading up from one-bed apartments and prevents them from starting families, then it also has negative social consequences over time.

People who default because of an inability to pay their mortgage will need to be housed somewhere, so the state will effectively pick up the tab for housing them anyway.

For others who want to trade up, are able to meet higher repayments, but who can't sell because of serious negative equity, perhaps the government should lean on the banking sector to come up with innovative solutions to allow them carry the negative equity from one property over to another?


----------



## z107 (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



> Absolutely, I wonder if this downturn will lead to a serious review of people's voting habits.


I think I'll vote for the slightly greyer party instead of the grey party this time.


----------



## micamaca (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

Will our government take the move Obama is making and bring in a tax on banks to get the taxpayers money back? I just saw it reported on the news last night. My first reaction was fair play to you. At least it would deter banks from taking such reckless action again.


----------



## z107 (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



> For others who want to trade up, are able to meet higher repayments, but who can't sell because of serious negative equity, perhaps the government should lean on the banking sector to come up with innovative solutions to allow them carry the negative equity from one property over to another?


An interesting idea. Does it mean that banks will have to lend at >100% of the value of the property? effectively unsecured loans?

I pay €100k for a house. I can only sell for €50k. I want to trade up to a house worth €175k. 
Will I get a €225k mortgage on a €175k house? (where €50k is unsecured?)


----------



## canicemcavoy (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



RIAD_BSC said:


> It is easy to rant away about negative equity, politicians and banks, but perhaps people should look at the issues here.


 
It's funny how bulls always try to dismiss their opponent's arguments as "ranting". I'm not ranting here at all. I'm calming stating the fact that the country has no money to be indulging those who, having bought overpriced property, now decided they need me (remember, _someone_ always pays) to fund their wish to move into even bigger property.

That, in a nutshell, is the issue here.


----------



## RealDub (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

Have no doubt everyone will be made pay. you only get a deal if you have leverage of soms kind and most regular folks are sitting ducks.

I bought a house in Brighton in 1998 and the guy I bought it from had been paying the mortgage for 10 years and was only just out of negative equity - hence the bank "allowed" him to sell it to me. I then sold it just two years later and it had increased in value by 50%.

If you buy a home then make sure you can pay the mortgage and forget the valuation. In 20 years or so you will own it and its likely to be worth at least as much as you paid for it! Whereas if you want to "invest" in property then realise you have become an investor with all the risks that go with that.


----------



## MANTO (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

Should it not be split into two scenarios:

People who are in negative equity who purchased a 'Home'
People who are in negative equity who purchased an 'Investment property'

As said above, and quite rightly, if you purchased a property as an investment thats the risk you took...

If you purchased a property as a home, as my sister did (purchase price €650,000 - current selling price €400,000) it shouldnt matter. As my sister said to me, I signed for the mortgage, i could afford the repayments, this is my home so it makes no difference to me if the value decreases or even if it increases, I am paying back what i agreed to borrow.

Now, before any jumps down my neck, I do understand not every scenario is straight forward, poeple have lost jobs, cannot afford repayments, may need to downsize, but, and maybe i am wrong, I think a lot of poeple just regret their decision to sign up to a 35 year expensive mortgage and are looking for a way out.


----------



## whizzbang (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



RIAD_BSC said:


> It is easy to rant away about negative equity, politicians and banks, but perhaps people should look at the issues here. Widespread negative equity is a massive drag on an economy, and so it needs to be addressed somehow. If negative equity stops people from trading up from one-bed apartments and prevents them from starting families, then it also has negative social consequences over time.
> 
> People who default because of an inability to pay their mortgage will need to be housed somewhere, so the state will effectively pick up the tab for housing them anyway.
> 
> For others who want to trade up, are able to meet higher repayments, but who can't sell because of serious negative equity, perhaps the government should lean on the banking sector to come up with innovative solutions to allow them carry the negative equity from one property over to another?



People have options. They can rent a bigger place while renting out their current owned property. You do not have to own a property to raise a family in it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



MANTO said:


> Should it not be split into two scenarios:
> 
> People who are in negative equity who purchased a 'Home'
> People who are in negative equity who purchased an 'Investment property'



Very good point. People do tend to think of the negative equity on a particular property. But if debt settlement is an option for them, then their entire assets and liabilities should be put on the table. For example

Home value: €600k
Investment property value: €300k
Home mortgage: €300k
Invesment mortgage €400k.

I am not in negative equity overall, so there should be no question of a debt settlement. 

When I say their "entire assets", I mean their entire assets, including their pension fund.  Debt settlement should not be easy and pain-free. But at the same time, people who have no hope of repaying their debts, should be able to earn a fresh start. 

If you can afford to make your repayments, negative equity is not too relevant and it should not be written off. But then why write off the negative equity of those who can't make their repayments. It's a very complicated and difficult issue with a lot of implications for society and the economy.


----------



## hokey32 (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

I rented for 10 years in Dublin, all the while trying to save a little bit here and there to buy my own property which I did almost 4 years ago at the age of 33.  Myself and my husband bought a two bedroomed apartment hoping to sell it on after a couple of years and upgrade to a house.

Of course now in all likelyhood we will never sell the apartment without still owing a lot of money to the bank so we will "suck it up", stay here and pay what we owe.  Since buying the apartment we have had a little girl and now we are expecting our second child in June.  Our living arrangements are by no means ideal but we just have to get on with it.

We had condsidered renting out our apartment and renting a house with some more room and a garden but that would involve losing the mortgage interest relief on the apartment.  Also if tenants moved out and the apartment was left idle for any length of time we wouldn't be able to afford to pay the mortgage and rent.

I have never expected anyone to pick up the tab for my mortgage, I needed a home and wanted to start a family.  I had already been renting for 10 years and didn't want to rent for the rest of my life.  I don't regard myself as greedy for wanting this.

Canicemcavoy: I don't expext you or anyone else to fund my wish to move to a bigger property.   

There's a lot of generalisation on this thread and a lot of nastiness being directed towards people who bought overpriced houses in the last 10 years or so.  Not everyone is looking for a scapegoat and those that are looking for a helping hand are people that couldn't foresee (understandably) both earners in their household losing their jobs and being unable to pay their mortgage.


----------



## whizzbang (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



hokey32 said:


> I rented for 10 years in Dublin, all the while trying to save a little bit here and there to buy my own property which I did almost 4 years ago at the age of 33.  Myself and my husband bought a two bedroomed apartment hoping to sell it on after a couple of years and upgrade to a house.
> 
> Of course now in all likelyhood we will never sell the apartment without still owing a lot of money to the bank so we will "suck it up", stay here and pay what we owe.  Since buying the apartment we have had a little girl and now we are expecting our second child in June.  Our living arrangements are by no means ideal but we just have to get on with it.
> 
> ...



Fair play to you for getting on with it hotkey! This is exactly what people should be doing. Making the best of a bad situation and investigating their options. There is nothing wrong with people who bought houses at any time, that is their right and they are of course free to do it. I think people are taking issue with people demanding to be bailed out of a situation they go themselves into rather than dealing with it responsibly like yourselves.

I have nothing but respect for people who are paying their way and making do with what they have rather than demanding they be bailed out by someone else. Its people like you standing by their responsibilities that will bring this country back around, not those that want a free "get out of jail" card.

Best of luck to you and the family!


----------



## canicemcavoy (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



hokey32 said:


> Canicemcavoy: I don't expext you or anyone else to fund my wish to move to a bigger property.


 
That's good and my sentiments aren't directed at people like you, or everyone in negative equity. Best of luck to you.


----------



## Knuttell (15 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

If there had been no down turn in property prices,no NE,had prices continued to rise at 15% a year,how many here bleating about debt forgiveness would be ringing up their lender to offer them a cut of the "profits"? or sending on a cheque to the Revenue for distribution to the tax payers?

I have a five year old car,its worth way less than the loan I originally took out and if I were to sell it tomorrow I would be in NE,why on Earth should I expect debt forgiveness for this loan?


You took the money,repay it,stop looking for the taxpayer to dig you out because believe me kids there will be no money or tolerance forthcoming from the majority of grown ups for this sort of nonsense.


----------



## nconroy (16 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

If a business finds itself unable to meet its debts (banks, builders, developers etc), they would be considered insolvent. They would be liquated and their assets divvied up to pay off the debts. The owner's would then be free to get on with their lives, unencumbered with the hangover of debt (assuming no reckless trading).

If a public Joe finds themselves unemployed or their salary cut in half and unable to meet their debts, what can they do. Very little it seems. That debt follows them to the grave and beyond, blighting their lives. 

Where is the fairness in this, or am I being naive in believing that what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander???


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

Under the Bankruptcy Act, a person can file for  bankruptcy but the law is so expensive and difficult that, in practice, very few people do. I think only 8 did last year. An insolvency specialist told me that he would not recommend the process for anyone with less than €1m in assets. 

The objective of the LRC is to propose new laws in this area. Most, if not all, of the European countries have more modern systems. The Debt Settlement would be non-judicial which means that it would be done in private. The creditors would be consulted but the Debt Settlement Office can probably impose a settlement. The person would have around 5 years to pay off whatever debts they could and then any remaining debts would be written off. 

It is not proposed that this would apply to negative equity though. They are thinking more of people's unsecured debts. But they might propose to sell the house and write off the negative equity. 

Make a submission to the LRC and express your views on it.


----------



## nconroy (16 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

If a private mortgage is a secured debt, what is it secured upon? Is it on the house? Or on the debt holder. 
The lenders hold a lien on the property, if the lender takes a risk and loans 100% of the value of a property, aren’t they speculating (on future growth) and should not they share the risk and the loss.


----------



## SarahMc (16 Jan 2010)

*Re: You promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*



umop3p!sdn said:


> The Law Reform Commission have already made their mind up on what they are going to do. Submitting our opinions is futile (Unless you're CEO of a bank). This is simply a PR exercise.



That is nonsense (but a widely held belief), IME consultation is very real in this country, and it is quite easy to influence policy and legislation.


----------



## kaplan (17 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

The LRC report whilst lengthy is well worth reading. The logic and arguments for a non-court based personal insolvency regime are compelling. Yet mortgage debt is not fully dealt with. Rather the emphasis is on unsecured debt which amounts to about €30bn or so. Mortgage debt is €147bn (Nov 09). Of this about €25bn was lent to amateur property investors - buy to let lending. The negative equity book is about €80bn with varying degrees of negativity depending on the original LTV and year the loan was taken out. Numbers are reckoned to be about 250k borrowers. 

There are two issues with mortgage debt being confused here. The first is the problem with unnaffordable repayment which occurs whether or not a borower is exposed to the second issue which is negative equity. 

The evidence is that where you have negative equity and rising unemployment, loan defaults rates rise. They reduce as troubled mortgages correct when people regain employment - this not something that will happen here as jobs are hard to come by. 

It takes a drop income before negative equity becomes a problem - which is what has happened here. The cost of financing repayments as a % of net household income has dramatically risen. 

So it seems defaults will continue to rise and there will have to be solutions for those who cannot afford to make their mortgage payments in full. Wholesale repossessions or the voluntary jingle mail option are not feasible given a homeowner culture, economic and social costs. 

Maybe it's best for people (who want to) to will walk away from their homes, hand over the keys and rent until they can once again buy a house - that is if they are not pursued for the shortfall between their mortgage and house value when sold by the lender. 

Of course, if property prices take years to rise to 2007 levels, then negative equity is a long term problem.


----------



## giles (18 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

House prices in some areas got rediculously high during the boom. To think that they would keep getting higher and higher was frankly stupid. Common sense says what goes up must come down. This is a big reason why I didn't buy during the boom, I simply wasn't prepared to pay over the odds for a house. A lot of people were blinded by greed and now they have to pay for that greed. If you bought a "home" then negitive equity shouldn't matter. If you bought an investment property then YOUR negitive equity is YOUR problem. Nobody should expect other people to bail them out of their bad investments.


----------



## Complainer (18 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



Brendan said:


> Under the Bankruptcy Act, a person can file for  bankruptcy but the law is so expensive and difficult that, in practice, very few people do. I think only 8 did last year. An insolvency specialist told me that he would not recommend the process for anyone with less than €1m in assets.


Is this some kind of Kafka-esque joke?_ Off topic discussion and responses to it removed _


----------



## dtlyn (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*



Robin Banks said:


> But if you only bought it because of the implicit guarantee* that property prices could only go up, but then that guarantee was _somehow_ revoked by nassty Bear Stearns & Lehman Brothers - shurely you are entitled not only to stop paying for your magic money making machine/3 bed semi/shoebox apartment - but also to a full refund?
> 
> *not written down anywhere
> 
> there is some sort of weird personal accountability thing that certain people are now trying to invoke during this crisis which is making the whole thing worse. it's bad for confidence.


 
If you're serious here then your logic is ridculous. If I go into BOI tomorrow and say I want 20k to bet on Kyoto Star in the Gold Cup, because he's won loads before and my mates brother (a paddy-power shareholder?) trains him and says he's in great shape this year, and can only win. Thereafter he gets taken out by a falling horse on the third, and I default because I was misled by my info sources, how quickly would I expect to be laughed out of the place i) asking for the money ii) explaining reasons for default?

Personal accountability isn't weird, it's fundamental to a functioning society.


----------



## Complainer (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*



dtlyn said:


> If you're serious here then your logic is ridculous. If I go into BOI tomorrow and say I want 20k to bet on Kyoto Star in the Gold Cup, because he's won loads before and my mates brother (a paddy-power shareholder?) trains him and says he's in great shape this year, and can only win. Thereafter he gets taken out by a falling horse on the third, and I default because I was misled by my info sources, how quickly would I expect to be laughed out of the place i) asking for the money ii) explaining reasons for default?
> 
> Personal accountability isn't weird, it's fundamental to a functioning society.


The analogy doesn't travel well. The banks had a direct role in increasing property prices, by lending more and more, at higher multiples, higher LTVs and for longer periods. There were in a no-lose situation, as they just had to call the Govt to bail them out when things wen't bad.

So unless BOI are involved in setting the odds for Kyoto Star, the analogy doesn't hold.


----------



## canicemcavoy (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*



Complainer said:


> The banks had a direct role in increasing property prices, by lending more and more, at higher multiples, higher LTVs and for longer periods.


 
If it was all the banks' fault, I'm sure you can point out postings on this forum from, say, 3 years ago, showing how people were against banks doing this.


----------



## GarBow (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*



canicemcavoy said:


> If it was all the banks' fault, I'm sure you can point out postings on this forum from, say, 3 years ago, showing how people were against banks doing this.


 
No warning signs of impending doom Here anyway.


----------



## canicemcavoy (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*



GarBow said:


> No warning signs of impending doom Here anyway.


 
Yes, indeed. I quote - "Happy days for FTBs." Hurrah!

([broken link removed] now a dead link - says it all)


----------



## Complainer (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*



canicemcavoy said:


> If it was all the banks' fault, I'm sure you can point out postings on this forum from, say, 3 years ago, showing how people were against banks doing this.


For the record, I didn't say 'it was all the banks fault'. But the dissenting voices were there, even if most people didn't want to listen;

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=729353&postcount=7
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=98923&postcount=31
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=97172&postcount=10
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=97193&postcount=13
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=98825&postcount=27


----------



## dtlyn (20 Jan 2010)

*Re: Why promised to pay it back, why not stick to your word?*



Complainer said:


> The analogy doesn't travel well. The banks had a direct role in increasing property prices, by lending more and more, at higher multiples, higher LTVs and for longer periods. There were in a no-lose situation, as they just had to call the Govt to bail them out when things wen't bad.
> 
> So unless BOI are involved in setting the odds for Kyoto Star, the analogy doesn't hold.



Yes, but by granting large loans specifically for the purposes of betting on Kyoto Star (a sure bet,surely), it does drive the odds down and furthermore punter n+1 requires a bigger loan to make the same return as punter n. So BOI loan more pushing the odds downwards further. This downward press of market odds distills nicely through the "risk models" and ends up on the balance sheet as triple A grade assets against which we can lend more cash to punter n+2. As long as we can distill this "sure bet" into a AAA asset, it becomes in the banks interest (it's easy money) for odds to depress further, increasing further the quality of assets already on it's books and allowing it to leverage against them to loan further. 

It's a little bit of a stretch, but I think the analogy holds well and illustrates a point.


----------



## sinbadsailor (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

It's a pity that everyone involved cannot take the most simplistic view to this problem and fix it in everyones interests.

Any solution going forward will ALWAYS favour the banks at the cost of the consumer. That is sad way of the world.

The banks took the risks, not the consumers in my opinion. They were and still are the guides and protectors of our money and should take more responsibility. The 'you borrow, you pay' is not taking everything into account. People borrowed because they could or because they felt that they could afford it. Both of these factors were 100% in the banks control. The banks should have run better stress tests (to include things like falling prices and unemployment) and should have prevented people from borrowing, stating clearly that they could not afford any blip in the future, whether the consumer liked it or not. Thats responsibility, thats being the guide.

But instead of this they threw out their money for profit, lending with no regard for anyones future, not even their own. They took at every opportunity, sold and mislead consumers with complicated financial products and generally abused their position.

Now when this current situation has occurred, they are unloading their debts for reduced capital amounts to reflect market values but here is the thing, their borrowing obligation for your house has decreased by upwards of 30%, but they want you to still pay back the 100% PLUS more interest as they are now increasing the cost of that borrowing to you! The This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language is falling out of everything and the banks now think that you have more capacity to pay back your loan rather than considerably less. That is completely messed up in my opinion.

So we need to come out of the forest, and take a look at the whole picture. The banks have profited enough and in time they will recover, in the long term, whats their rush.

The banks should go through their mortgage loan books, apply the same reduction to each loan as they have been given by NAMA, and then reduce the capital amount owing, esentially putting everyone owing 100% of the current market value of their home. The payments continue at a lower rate as a result. Once this is done, if you cant afford it, then tough luck, you lose your home. This would mean that the banks wuld have no problems with non-payment and everyone would feel that they were taken into account in this process.

Isn't it about time we started acting like human beings, and stop looking at everything in the world through financial glasses. With a strong conviction to change, the banks can still be super profitable without peoples lives being ruined.

And yes, it is this simple, all it takes is a short and temporary blow the financial sector, who will recover, similar to the major blow we as consumers and tax payers have been feeling for last 18 months or so.

*update*
And of course I should mention that in order to prevent any of it happening again, if you accept the reduction on your home, well then you wont be looking for a tradeup in the next 5 years would you as it would be part of the agreement. An agreement that revalues your home and helps you out, not releases you from a debt burden that you want to replace with more debt ;-)


----------



## canicemcavoy (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



> "The banks should go through their mortgage loan books, apply the same reduction to each loan as they have been given by NAMA, and then reduce the capital amount owing, esentially *putting everyone owing 100% of the current market value of their home*."


 
So essentially, the more reckless a person was, the more they are rewarded.

Again, this leads back to the point - why would anyone in Ireland ever again be financially sensible and only borrow what they can afford, if they know they will eventually be bailed out?


----------



## sinbadsailor (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



canicemcavoy said:


> So essentially, the more reckless a person was, the more they are rewarded.
> 
> Again, this leads back to the point - why would anyone in Ireland ever again be financially sensible and only borrow what they can afford, if they know they will eventually be bailed out?



This idea that people are being rewarded is half the problem. Everyone played a part in this mess, no exceptions. Some people were wreckless yes, but others maybe had the idea that the the "bank knows best and with 101 finance ads for trading up cars and houses in our faces, lets see if we can get a mortgage"

In the end the people were only as 'wreckless' as the banks let them be?

The thing that really gets me up about the Irish mentality is that it is dysfunctional. Why does everything have to come down to who has what, who got something that you didn't or that why should certain people in society be allowed to .... yada yada yada.

Mistakes were made, some lost, some won big. The only true change is to completely wipe the past events off the radar. They cannot be changed, so accept that and look at what is best for everyone tomorrow, what is best for Irish society and how they avail of and use their credit.

Irish people don't like to take responsibility, on any level, it's always someone else fault. So lets change that, because in the end it's this close-minded and anti-human thinking that keeps Ireland as the negative force that it is.

So in conclusion to your point, we are not 'bailing people out', we are now 'rewarding' wreckless behaviour. We are learning from past faults on a number of fronts and changing the landscape completely to ensure that a new way of using credit is born, with no pejudices.

A change in the general thinking in Ireland like this would solve so many problems both political and financial.


----------



## canicemcavoy (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to *



> Everyone played a part in this mess, no exceptions.


 
The usual cliché from the vested interests. The usual Fianna Fail line - "Everyone is to blame, therefore noone is to blame." Can you tell me exactly what part I played, for example?



> Irish people don't like to take responsibility, on any level, it's always someone else fault.


 
That's about the first thing you've said that I agree with. How this squares with the fact that you want to give some people the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of euro, perhaps even millions, because they made a bad investment, beats me.

There is no such thing as free money. Any money lost by banks will be made up by us, the taxpayers. Please explain to me why it's better for society that Tarquin Evans , who overpaid for his semi-D in Mount Merrion, should receive the equivalent of €500,000, rather than the same money being spent on job creation or on vital health services.



> We are learning from past faults on a number of fronts and changing the landscape completely


 
How on earth are we "changing the landscape completely"? Please tell me one law that has been brought in that will prevent a future property bubble like the one we have seen. Simply giving lots of money and then pretending the whole thing never happened changes absolutely nothing.


----------



## sinbadsailor (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



canicemcavoy said:


> Can you tell me exactly what part I played, for example?


No I can't, I am only assuming that you like so many others have been looking at their level of debt and thinking that maybe some of it was completely unnecessary and given the chance again, would have not taken it on.




canicemcavoy said:


> That's about the first thing you've said that I agree with. How this squares with the fact that you want to give some people the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of euro, perhaps even millions, because they made a bad investment, beats me.



There is the mindset problem right there. You are not giving anyone money, you are only reducing a number in a computer system that tells them what they have to pay in the future. Remember, no-one owns their homes until the mortgage is paid. If the money to lend you for your home was created out of thin air when you signed the mortgage contract, why cant it be reduced in the same fashion?



canicemcavoy said:


> There is no such thing as free money. Any money lost by banks will be made up by us, the taxpayers. Please explain to me why it's better for society that Tarquin Evans , who overpaid for his semi-D in Mount Merrion, should receive the equivalent of €500,000, rather than the same money being spent on job creation or on vital health services.



By quoting people directly, you are only re-inforcing my point about the Irish attitude. What does this Evans guy have to do with your debt (assuming you have some) or mine or anyone elses for that matter.



canicemcavoy said:


> How on earth are we "changing the landscape completely"? Please tell me one law that has been brought in that will prevent a future property bubble like the one we have seen. Simply giving lots of money and then pretending the whole thing never happened changes absolutely nothing.



Mis-type on my part, sorry, I meant we should be learning from past faults...

Why does everything have to be a law. This is the problem with Irish Society, do something until you get caught and even then bend the law to avoid punishment.

No one would pretend nothing happend, but what does a whole generation and possibly the generation after being controlled by debt solve?


----------



## canicemcavoy (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



sinbadsailor said:


> No I can't, I am only assuming that you like so many others have been looking at their level of debt


 
I have no debt whatsoever. I'm 6 figures in the black actually. Mainly due to the fact that I looked at the property bubble of the last 10 years, saw it was madness, ignored the vested interests, and stayed away. 



> There is the mindset problem right there. You are not giving anyone money


 
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain't_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch



> you are only reducing a number in a computer system that tells them what they have to pay in the future


 
Oh, in that case, let's increase everyone's bank deposits by tenfold, since that, too, is just a "number in a computer system".

I'm sorry, but this is economic illiteracy of mindboggling proportions. This is on par with the woman I overheard in a restaurant recently who thought NAMA was a great idea as she'd had friends who'd been refused loans for New York shopping trips.



> By quoting people directly, you are only re-inforcing my point about the Irish attitude. What does this Evans guy have to do with your debt (assuming you have some) or mine or anyone elses for that matter.


 
I would have thought it was obvious that was a made-up name. How about you address the point of my argument? 

Oh wait, no, I forgot. It's all only "numbers in a computer system" with absolutely no impact on the real world - I forgot that's about the whole of your argument. Somehow, our financial selves are living in some kind of "The Matrix" alternate reality - it's Keano Reeves as Neo, except he's running around with a credit card instead of a gun.


----------



## sinbadsailor (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



canicemcavoy said:


> I have no debt whatsoever. I'm 6 figures in the black actually. Mainly due to the fact that I looked at the property bubble of the last 10 years, saw it was madness, ignored the vested interests, and stayed away.



Well then my friend, firstly congratulations to you, your doing something right, but secondly, doesn't this mean that you have dont have the proper perspective or emotional connection to discuss about how to deal with people with debt? I do believe I can see why you think everyone will be getting a free lunch after you bought the ingredients and prepared your own.



canicemcavoy said:


> Oh, in that case, let's increase everyone's bank deposits by tenfold, since that, too, is just a "number in a computer system".



If you mean that it's that easy to do that then yes, but that wasn't the point I was making.



canicemcavoy said:


> I'm sorry, but this is economic illiteracy of mindboggling proportions. This is on par with the woman I overheard in a restaurant recently who thought NAMA was a great idea as she'd had friends who'd been refused loans for New York shopping trips.



You do not need an economics degree to know what is right, wrong or fair, or to present an opinion on how to change things for the better. It's the closed mind of the bankers and economists and their advice that sees the boom/recession cycle repeat over and over again



canicemcavoy said:


> I would have thought it was obvious that was a made-up name. How about you address the point of my argument?



I did, you are not giving anyone money by doing what I suggested. No one is going to walk away with a cheque, just pay less and what they can afford for the asset they are borowing for? 



canicemcavoy said:


> Oh wait, no, I forgot. It's all only "numbers in a computer system" with absolutely no impact on the real world - I forgot that's about the whole of your argument. Somehow, our financial selves are living in some kind of "The Matrix" alternate reality - it's Keano Reeves as Neo, except he's running around with a credit card instead of a gun.



Silly and childish. You do realise that all the wealth/debt in the world bar the possible 10% of hard currency in the system is held on computer dont you? You do realise that money is created out of thin air when loans are given. A bank only has to hold 10% on deposit of the total money it lends out. Money and the monetary system is pure electronic fantasy. I hope a good deal of that 6 figures you have is either in cash stocks or gold, otherwise it could all disappear in any number of ways.


----------



## Howitzer (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



sinbadsailor said:


> There is the mindset problem right there. You are not giving anyone money, you are only reducing a number in a computer system that tells them what they have to pay in the future. Remember, no-one owns their homes until the mortgage is paid. If the money to lend you for your home was created out of thin air when you signed the mortgage contract, why cant it be reduced in the same fashion?


LOL. Great stuff.


----------



## PetPal (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

I've heard all this before and I still ask the same question (and haven't had a satisfactory response from any of the "poor mortgage holders").  The question is this.  Let's say I agree that those who over-borrowed should be compensated in some way, because the economy slumped, and they're now suffering.  (I don't agree, by the way, but let's say I do).  If things had gone the other way (ie property had continued to boom, and these "poor mortgage holders" now sat on a pot of gold) would those "poor mortgage holders" be prepared to put loads of money back into the pot for those of us who hadn't been able to invest in property?  It's so simple.  If you decide to take a risk (and investing is a risk, even in property) then you must be prepared for the consequences.  Otherwise, we would all take lots of risks, safe in the knowledge that we would be bailed out if it all went belly up!  In fact the word "risk" wouldn't need to exist.


----------



## sinbadsailor (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*



PetPal said:


> I've heard all this before and I still ask the same question (and haven't had a satisfactory response from any of the "poor mortgage holders").  The question is this.  Let's say I agree that those who over-borrowed should be compensated in some way, because the economy slumped, and they're now suffering.  (I don't agree, by the way, but let's say I do).  If things had gone the other way (ie property had continued to boom, and these "poor mortgage holders" now sat on a pot of gold) would those "poor mortgage holders" be prepared to put loads of money back into the pot for those of us who hadn't been able to invest in property?  It's so simple.  If you decide to take a risk (and investing is a risk, even in property) then you must be prepared for the consequences.  Otherwise, we would all take lots of risks, safe in the knowledge that we would be bailed out if it all went belly up!  In fact the word "risk" wouldn't need to exist.



There is no poor mortgage holders, there is no compensation, reward for foolish behaviour etc, there are assets in the system that owe more than they are worth.

I don't get this idea of the good putting 'their' money back into a 'pot' for the bad people. You are not giving anyone anything, so where is the begrudgery coming from? Forget dodgy builders running amok and unmarried mothers with beemers and semi-Ds. Just think of the system of how debt is controlled in this tiny little country of ours.

An example I would use is this. You have a houses in an estate and when they were built they cost 150k. People bought those houses and happy days. The market goes up and after 5 years they are worth 300k. Some sell some dont and stay put. Market slumps and house prices falls to 150k again. Are you telling me that while not affecting you, having paid 5 years into a 150k mortage and who now sites on that little profit after the up and down would object to the person with a year old mortage of 300k on the exact same house? It seems to me that people want those who moved late to 'take their medicine' for wreckless behaviour when all they might have done was to have a family in a boom and need bigger digs?

This is the attitude I mentioned before. Irish people are irrational, illogical and bitter and have no respect for their common Irish man/woman. This attitude is rife in politics and banking and just about everywhere. 

What I suggested was a way to help the Irish people as a whole, not to give handouts (which is not what this equates to)

I'm not a poor mortage holder with a grudge by the way. Like the previous poster I played safe and am quite confortable (without the 6 figures mind you), just in case thats what was crossing your mind.

I would just like to see an completely sane, logical and intelligent solution, that fixes the mess and educates people so that it wont happen again by choice, not by fear of law or regulation.

But none of this is going to be a satisfactory response I fear. I actually doubt there would be one for you


----------



## canicemcavoy (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to *

So just to be clear: 

1. Prices go up 50%: mortgage holders keep the 50%, everyone else gets nothing.
2. Prices go down 50%: mortgages holders get the 50% back from everyone else, they lose.


----------



## Sweeper (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

The topic is convoluted for many reasons which are specific to the Irish culture. Young people are brain-washed into thinking that apartments are merely "starter homes" in which children could not possibly be effectively raised (while parents in cities all over Europe are doing it), which in turn leads to the feeling of "hard done-by-ness" when the expected escape to a house with a front and back garden looks like it's out of reach. The "starter home" mentality impacted on the quality and location of building - meaning much of what has been built is less than ideal in terms of standards and may very well be unsuitable for families because the firmly held belief was that couples would "trade up". In addition, going forth to multiply is seen as a right in Ireland as opposed to something you may or may not be able to afford - which in turn leads to a second wallop of "hard done-by-ness" if the desired family size seems out of reach. I am not criticising these perspectives - I see them as part of our culture.

I believe in personal responsibility, but don't buy into the notion that we each operate as independent islands and are fully-equipped to make wise decisions in spite of the noise around us and that bad decisions equates to "greed" - the reality is that young people were being encouraged and urged into borrowing for homes, investments, and all sorts of other products because our society descended into the most profit-focussed decade in its history - and possibly in its future.  I am not in negative equity or in financial trouble, but I will not attempt to separate myself from those who are. To use the word "greed" is inappropriate in many cases - many people were swept up by the prevailing tide which we all did our part in creating - even if only by paying the €6 for that floppy white-bread sandwich.

That tide has changed, but it's simplistic to say that we're now less "greedy" - we are forced  as a society to re-evaluate and re-prioritize by our new-found circumstances.


----------



## Sweeper (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to*

Warren Buffett tells a story about a meeting with a high-flying millionaire (let's call him Sam). During the meeting, a young man came in to server refreshments. Warren asked Sam "would you trust this man to run with your investments - to get you the best deals so that you can retire as wealthy as possible?". Sam laughed and said "of course not! he's completely unqualified!" to which Warren responded "then why do you expect him to run his own investments?" 

This was in reference to the gross inequities created by privatized pensions in the U.S. Those who were "in the know" and had the best advisers do very very well. Joe Soap is lucky if he ends up in the black. 

I think that analogy can be applied here - a collective responsibility is essential.


----------



## janeymak (25 Feb 2010)

*Re: Why do people expect to be let off Negative Equity? You made a promise, stick to *

Hear hear


----------

