# Bernard McNamara - Do you feel sorry for him?



## polo1 (14 Jan 2010)

I am sure I am going to lambasted for writing this. 

I have just been reading todays papers about Bernard McNamara and saw him on the news last night also. I am finding it difficult not to feel a bit sorry for him (as a person). 

I know this is probably mad (to feel sorry for him) but after working for years (most likely very hard) in a family business he now has nothing and is going to loose everything, effectively because he made miscalculated deals and because the banks allowed him to borrow extortionate amounts of money which he used personal guarantees for. 
I just feel a little sorry for him and his family...
Anyone else feel any sympathy?


----------



## RonanC (14 Jan 2010)

No sympathy at all for him or any of his greedy friends. They made so much money during the boom and they forced the price of houses and land up and up by buying up great big chuncks of land. 

He deserves to be jailed if he cannot pay back his loans, its a simple as that. He deserves to be left pennyless if he cant pay back his loans. 

Tough! 

And why do I think that? Well if you or me or any other ordinary person owed the banks money or failed to pay your tv licence we'd be locked up in Mountjoy for a month!


----------



## MANTO (14 Jan 2010)

Justice is being Served - Thank you very much!!

Oh and.... Do you really think he has no hidden assets / money - i seriously doubt he will be left 'broke'...


----------



## RonanC (14 Jan 2010)

Thats the thing Manto, I would imagine he has money stashed away in bank accounts all around the world.


----------



## MANTO (14 Jan 2010)

Exactly RonanC - all that money buys the best of Accountants


----------



## terrontress (14 Jan 2010)

I'd gladly face his current predicament to have lived the high life he has done for all these years.

The man is expecting sympathy because he may be forced to sell his Ailesbury Road house.

Slap it in to him.


----------



## z107 (14 Jan 2010)

Well, right now the people of Ireland are being forced to pay our money to insolvent banks. We are effectively paying for other people's gambling losses. If they had 'won' - would we also be sharing the rewards?

I feel sorry for everyone that has:
- lost a job or business
- had a pay cut or social welfare cut
- lost social welfare benefits
- paying more PRSI or income levy
- paying increased hidden government taxes and charges 

I can't really say I feel sorry for any FF cronies. These people will remain rich, at the expenses of everyone else in the country - us.


----------



## TarfHead (14 Jan 2010)

While I doubt he will end up penniless, I also doubt that he has money stashed around the world. I believe that the prominent developers never really cashed in their profits, they just rolled them into the next gamble.

Sympathy ? The consequence of his misfortunes hits your wallet and mine, so no sympathy from me.


----------



## callybags (14 Jan 2010)

terrontress said:


> I'd gladly face his current predicament to have lived the high life he has done for all these years.
> 
> The man is expecting sympathy because he may be forced to sell his Ailesbury Road house.
> 
> Slap it in to him.


 
Where is your evidence that he

a) is expecting sympathy and

b) has been living the high life for all these years?

On a professional level I do not have any sympathy for him. He took big risks to build up his business and therefore has to take the consequences when the risks do not pay off.

I do feel sympathy on a personal level for anyone who has worked hard and lost it all.


----------



## Purple (14 Jan 2010)

callybags said:


> where is your evidence that he
> 
> a) is expecting sympathy and
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## MANTO (14 Jan 2010)

Purple said:


> +1


 

But i seriously doubt if things didnt go belly up for him, he would feel sympathy for all those in negative equity, on a personal level!


----------



## Purple (14 Jan 2010)

MANTO said:


> But i seriously doubt if things didnt go belly up for him, he would feel sympathy for all those in negative equity, on a personal level!



Why, do you know him?


----------



## Staples (14 Jan 2010)

As I recall, he didn't have a great deal of sympathy for the residents of O'Devaney gardens when he reneged on a contractual agreement to re-develop the flats complex.


----------



## MANTO (14 Jan 2010)

Obviously not, I find this thread a little hypocritical considering the numerous threads on how the likes of him and the banks have brought the country to its knees and then there is this thread where we have to feel sorry him!

He took the risks - it didnt pay off - Tough! Thats business.


----------



## Sunny (14 Jan 2010)

MANTO said:


> But i seriously doubt if things didnt go belly up for him, he would feel sympathy for all those in negative equity, on a personal level!


 
People in negative equity isn't his fault. He didn't give out mortgages. The banks gave him massive loans (without of him even asking for them if he is to be believed) to buy land at massively inflated prices so obviously the prices of property climbed but the banks were there again on the other side to lend to the buyers to buy property at these inflated prices. The only people to win from this crisis was the banks.

I don't have much sympathy for property developers like him in one sense just like I don't have much sympathy for people who lost fortunes in the dot com bubble but I can't say I take pleasure in seeing this happen to him while people I consider to be much more culpable are walking around the streets on massive pensions and pay offs.

By the way, didn't you start a thread about the Irish being begrudgers....


----------



## DB74 (14 Jan 2010)

Sunny said:


> People in negative equity isn't his fault. He didn't give out mortgages.


 
No he didn't but he (and others) assisted in pushing the price of houses to astronomical levels.

When we bought our house in 2005 my wife was on maternity leave and rather than wait for the showhouses to open on the Saturday, she went to the selling agent and put a booking deposit down on the Thursday, thus securing the house at €365K.

When the showhouses opened on Saturday, the same houses were €395K!

Do you think that the builder really needed the extra €30K per house? All  pure profit (ex VAT of course). Possibly about as much as a Premiership footballer really "needs" that extra €20K per week in his wage packet.

I hope he loses everything.


----------



## DB74 (14 Jan 2010)

callybags said:


> I do feel sympathy on a personal level for anyone who has worked hard and lost it all.


 
Where is your evidence that he worked hard?


----------



## Sunny (14 Jan 2010)

DB74 said:


> No he didn't but he (and others) assisted in pushing the price of houses to astronomical levels.
> 
> When we bought our house in 2005 my wife was on maternity leave and rather than wait for the showhouses to open on the Saturday, she went to the selling agent and put a booking deposit down on the Thursday, thus securing the house at €365K.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry he put a gun to your head and made you sign. Did you go to the guards?


----------



## DB74 (14 Jan 2010)

No - I took my chance and I'll live with the consequences. I don't expect sympathy or pity or even financial assistance.

So forgive me if I expect others to do the same, especially those who made fortunes on the back of silly little citizens like me who just wanted a roof over my head for my family without paying astronomical rent prices or begging a family member to let us stay in their spare room!

When did you buy your own house Sunny?


----------



## Sunny (14 Jan 2010)

DB74 said:


> No - I took my chance and I'll live with the consequences. I don't expect sympathy or pity or even financial assistance.
> 
> So forgive me if I expect others to do the same, especially those who made fortunes on the back of silly little citizens like me who just wanted a roof over my head for my family without paying astronomical rent prices or begging a family member to let us stay in their spare room!
> 
> When did you buy your own house Sunny?


 
2006 and am in negative equity. I am not defending him per se but I just don't understand the 'I hope he loses everything' way of thinking. He didn't force anyone to buy a house, he didn't steal money, he didn't move offshore and avoid tax, he didn't defraud anyone, he didn't operate forced labour camps. He ran a business in an industry that was allowed to grow out of control because it suited banks and politicians. He has to take a share of the blame for his financial suicide due to his ego but I don't take any more pleasure from seeing him fail than I do seeing any other business fail.


----------



## DerKaiser (14 Jan 2010)

I think the more general point out of this is how we view failed enterprise.  

This country was going nowhere for years because there was no one to take a risk.  

We then developed a culture of risk taking and had a golden period of 10 years where every young person coming out of school/college in the country (and many older ones who had been on the long term unemployment scrapheap) were given the opportunity to participate in the economic success of the country.

200,000 people who would otherwise have sat around scratching their asses on the dole were gainfully employed.  

Now we've hit the wall because of our lack of imagination in persiting with building more an more houses.

Many people may curse the entrepreneurs who have led us through all of this but that is incredibly short sighted as:

A) It disregards a decade of economic success
B) It is not progressive to discourage enterprise


----------



## Purple (14 Jan 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> I think the more general point out of this is how we view failed enterprise.
> 
> This country was going nowhere for years because there was no one to take a risk.
> 
> ...



Excellent post/points... expect to get blasted...


----------



## MrMan (14 Jan 2010)

DB74 said:


> No he didn't but he (and others) assisted in pushing the price of houses to astronomical levels.
> 
> When we bought our house in 2005 my wife was on maternity leave and rather than wait for the showhouses to open on the Saturday, she went to the selling agent and put a booking deposit down on the Thursday, thus securing the house at €365K.
> 
> ...


 
Plenty of people assisted in pushing up the price of houses. When it boils down to it though there are two groups of people who had a massive say in where the price of houses in the last decade went. Group one were home owners who pushed and pushed and pushed the limits, openly gazumped deals and looked at squeezing every last drop from buyers. Group number two would be the buyers, who queued for houses creating frenzied demand and thought nothing of having bidding wars with monoppoly money.
Both buyers and sellers were encouraged by banks, media, EA's etc but they crucially has the final say on both sides of every deal.

Outside of this, the man at least created years of employment for 1,000's of workers and would have paid good wages in the boom period. For all of his perceived greed he at least created wealth and prosperity for others which is more than can be said for most.

I do feel sorry for him.


----------



## WaterSprite (14 Jan 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> I think the more general point out of this is how we view failed enterprise.
> 
> This country was going nowhere for years because there was no one to take a risk.
> 
> ...



I agree with this in principle, but don't think that being a property developer is true entrepreneurship.  The whole business of everyone in the country buying and selling houses to each other was never going to be sustainable.  Better to invest in export-led business to encourage true enterprise (IMO)


----------



## tiger (14 Jan 2010)

I agree that property development isn't true entrepreneurship, no body is inventing a better mouse trap to sell to the rest of the world.
Unfortunately the finance and tax regime encouraged our risk takers to put their effort and money into property instead of something else.


----------



## Complainer (14 Jan 2010)

MANTO said:


> Exactly RonanC - all that money buys the best of Accountants


Didn't seem to buy him the best of valuers!

I'll feel sorry him when he has lost his house on Ailsbury Rd and he is living in O'Devaney Gardens with the community that he dumped - the Partnership in PPP isn't so much partnership as a quick fling.


----------



## Slash (14 Jan 2010)

The fact is we shall never know how much BMcN has lost or will lose because only he will know that and he won't tell anyone, why should he?

He will, however, continue to do the Mother Teresa speeches and tell us how much tax he has paid, as though he had a choice.

I predict that, ten years from now, BMcN will still be living in Ailesbury Road and will still have at least one helicopter.


----------



## MANTO (14 Jan 2010)

Sunny said:


> By the way, didn't you start a thread about the Irish being begrudgers....



I was actually thinking of that thread when i was posting, its nothing to do with begrudgery on my part...its mainly the hypocrisy this thread shows. It was already said the banks were to blame to one of my previous posts.... i can read plenty of posts that blame the developers on this site so why is he any different?

Unless poeple stop posting generalisations such as "the banks" / "the developers" I am going to assume they included MrMcN in this category!


----------



## z107 (14 Jan 2010)

> It was already said the banks were to blame to one of my previous posts.... i can read plenty of posts that blame the developers on this site so why is he any different?


Neither the banks or the developers were to blame. If you want to blame a group, blame the government.
It was the government that fuelled the bubble with their property tax incentives. At any stage, the government could have stopped the 'soft regulation' - but decided not to. Now they seem to be blocking an enquiry into the banks. I wonder why?
The developers are trying to make as much money as possible. They didn't break any laws. Same with the banks.
Blame the government for creating the mess, and blame them again for forcing us to pay for it!


----------



## micmclo (15 Jan 2010)

I've met him several times, he owned the hotel where I was night porter. So I was the only staff there each night

Very, very nice and genuine man. I've not a bad word to say about him personally. And been friends with others who have met him and said the same.

I also checked in his driver and yes, his pilot and nobody had a bad word to say.

He was a risk-taker, he started a business and employed hundreds if not thousands.
Ultimately he's taken too many risks and lost.
But better to have tried and lost then sitting back and knocking others.
Now property development isn't exactly entrepreneurship but before you knock him, how many businesses did you start and jobs did you create?
And yes, the hotel I worked in was only realy built right before the tax breaks for hotels were stopped. But it's still open years later and employing people


----------



## Chocks away (15 Jan 2010)

polo1 said:


> I am sure I am going to lambasted for writing this.
> 
> I have just been reading todays papers about Bernard McNamara and saw him on the news last night also. I am finding it difficult not to feel a bit sorry for him (as a person).
> 
> ...


Did he not offer to repay his borrowings @ €100,000 per month? So he is not what you'd call strapped.


----------



## D8Lady (15 Jan 2010)

As a person, I did feel sorry for him. 
His main concern was for the people who worked for him loyally for 40 years, he's about to lose everything he's worked for, he's not running away & is facing his problems head on. He spoke well but with a very wobbly lower lip. 

Were stupid decisions made? yes. 

But what I found disturbing was his response to the question of his own future - he replied that "it may be short". I did find that quite telling.


----------



## Purple (15 Jan 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Neither the banks or the developers were to blame. If you want to blame a group, blame the government.
> It was the government that fuelled the bubble with their property tax incentives. At any stage, the government could have stopped the 'soft regulation' - but decided not to. Now they seem to be blocking an enquiry into the banks. I wonder why?
> The developers are trying to make as much money as possible. They didn't break any laws. Same with the banks.
> Blame the government for creating the mess, and blame them again for forcing us to pay for it!



I agree completely; the government created the environment where capital was sucked into construction rather than export focused businesses. Builders just reacted to that. I always get a laugh at the simple minded people who talk about greedy builders and developers and how they overcharged for houses. They didn’t overcharge; people overpaid. Anyone who has ever sold their house needs to ask themselves one question; did you a) seek to get the highest price for the property or b) did you sell it to the buyer that you thought was the most needy? If the answer was  “a” then you are no different from any developer or builder that sought to maximise their return while operating within the law. If you think otherwise then you are an idiot.


----------



## Firefly (15 Jan 2010)

Purple said:


> I agree completely; the government created the environment where capital was sucked into construction rather than export focused businesses. Builders just reacted to that. I always get a laugh at the simple minded people who talk about greedy builders and developers and how they overcharged for houses. They didn’t overcharge; people overpaid. Anyone who has ever sold their house needs to ask themselves one question; did you a) seek to get the highest price for the property or b) did you sell it to the buyer that you thought was the most needy? If the answer was “a” then you are no different from any developer or builder that sought to maximise their return while operating within the law. If you thing otherwise then you are an idiot.


 
+1. Same for the eejits who paid 80k to join the K club, 130k for their 6 series BMW, 500K for a hol home in Spain. All decisions made without duress.


----------



## Latrade (15 Jan 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> I think the more general point out of this is how we view failed enterprise.
> 
> This country was going nowhere for years because there was no one to take a risk.
> 
> ...


 
+1 (with some caveats, but that's a different discussion).

I actually did feel a bit sorry for him, but possibly for different reasons. I don't think he was completely green, he knew the risks, he took them. Just as how he'd be living easily with the rewards if the risk had worked, he should live with the consequences.

However, two things struck me about the interview. First, he's being made a scapegoat for the Docklands disaster. Again, I don't fully buy the line from him that he was doing it purely for the good of Dublin and Ireland (as the Tricolour raises behind him and Artane Boys Band start playing Amhrán na bhFiann), in fact I'd say that motive was somewhere down on his list after "take the dogs for a walk". But, there were plenty of parties involved in this.

But the main thing that struck me was we actually finally had a human face for our bloodlust. Not just someone avoiding the cameras as they come out of court, not just some file photos of them in their fancy car/helicopter/Galway Races/Football Match, a genuine person stood there looking on the verge of breakdown. 

I'm not saying feel sorry for him or comparing his woe with that suffered by hundreds of thousands of others who have greater things to worry about. But for the first time there was an actual person and face put to these mysterious "developers" and "bankers" people who it's easy to hate and blame because they are faceless and seldom seen in a human capacity.

I dunno. It's alike a boxing match where your man is pounding the other guy and you're into it, your want him to go in for the kill. Something animal takes over. Then the guy goes down, he's out and he's hurt, badly. All of sudden you realise it's a brutal, inhumane sport. 

I know it won't have any effect, but I kind of hoped there would be some slow shift away from the bloodlust and wanting to see people hung up from the flag poles along the quays. 

As I say, I don't feel totally sorry for him or his ilk, I just don't like the character these times have brought out as people bay for blood of anyone. Anyone but themselves that is.


----------



## Bronte (15 Jan 2010)

Actually I did feel sorry for him when I heard the radio interview.

I do not know enough about him to make a judgement on him as a developer.  Did he construct fine houses, did he cut corners, did he build badly, did he treat his workers well, were they happy working for him that would be how I would judge him as a developer and as a man.  My brother told me of one builder (not McN) who built horrible shoeboxes for people, that's not right.  But planners allowed it.

I have no problem with him taking any profit he could, that's business.  

He is a very foolish man indeed if he did not keep money back.  He has an obligation to his family not to lose the family home and lifestyle if at all possible.  And yes he has to pay his creditors but an entrepreneur has the protection of a company at their disposal and rightly so in our capitalist society.

I have not decided yet who I will blame for the whole sorry mess, but bankers are right up there with politicians more than developers.  Time will tell who really was to blame.  People queuing to purchase at inflated prices are also to blame.

There was one telling thing in the interview, he was angry at professionals, valuers.  It seemed to me that he believed the professionals when he should have known better, especially as he had the experience.  Maybe he should have trusted his own instincts and knowledge more, did he get sucked in too to all the hype.  He was also angry at the Davy investors (have I the name right)  because they were somehow cosseted, which I found interesting I'll have to get a pod cast to figure it out. 

I also admire him for giving the radio interview.  I'd like to know the views of builders, to understand their thinking and why it went wrong  I contrast that interview with the banker interview and I know which man is a man and which is a coward a thief and a conman.  Interviews can be really telling.

Also telling is the night porter views.  Not all developers are monsters or gods.  They are human like us, they just have more to lose.  I hope the man recovers from this setback, I'm sure we need men like him to rebuild our great country.


----------



## Staples (15 Jan 2010)

Firefly said:


> +1. Same for the eejits who paid 80k to join the K club, 130k for their 6 series BMW, 500K for a hol home in Spain. All decisions made without duress.


 
There's a distinction between those who paid (what we now know was) over the odds for their principal residence and those who paid over the odds for discretionary items such as holiday homes, second cars, etc, etc.

A lot of first-time buyers believed (and were encouraged by vested interests to believe) that failure to purchase ASAP would put them at risk of never being able to have a home of their own. There was little support for what was the minority, but entirely logical, view that house prices couldn't continue to rise in value at the rates they had been. 

Personally, I have little sympathy for anyone who's stuck with a shoebox in Bulgaria who might "talk to Joe" about how unfairly he's been stitched up. But my heart goes out to first-time buyers who bought at the high-end and effectively mortgaged their futures.


----------



## DB74 (15 Jan 2010)

Purple said:


> I always get a laugh at the simple minded people who talk about greedy builders and developers and how they overcharged for houses. They didn’t overcharge; people overpaid.


 
What exactly do you think these "simple-minded" people were supposed to do? Sit at home and live with Mammy & Daddy for an extra 10+ years until they were nearly 40 in the hope that eventually the property market would come crashing down around everyone else.

It's a pity we didn't have great minds like yours to guide us all safely through the boom!

I would argue that there are 3 groups of people who have been badly affected by the property crash

1. Banks
2. Developers
3. Homeowners

1. The banks are being bailed out by the government/taxpayer

2. The vast majority of developers are OK by virtue of limited liability protection, except in rare cases such as McNamara where he gave personal guarantees over some business debts.

3. No comment


----------



## liaconn (15 Jan 2010)

staples said:


> there's a distinction between those who paid (what we now know was) over the odds for their principal residence and those who paid over the odds for discretionary items such as holiday homes, second cars, etc, etc.
> 
> A lot of first-time buyers believed (and were encouraged by vested interests to believe) that failure to purchase asap would put them at risk of never being able to have a home of their own. There was little support for what was the minority, but entirely logical, view that house prices couldn't continue to rise in value at the rates they had been.
> 
> Personally, i have little sympathy for anyone who's stuck with a shoebox in bulgaria who might "talk to joe" about how unfairly he's been stitched up. But my heart goes out to first-time buyers who bought at the high-end and effectively mortgaged their futures.


 
+1.


----------



## Purple (15 Jan 2010)

DB74 said:


> What exactly do you think these "simple-minded" people were supposed to do? Sit at home and live with Mammy & Daddy for an extra 10+ years until they were nearly 40 in the hope that eventually the property market would come crashing down around everyone else.


 They could have rented, just like people do in other countries. Oh, and if enough people had stayed at home with mammy and daddy the boom wouldn’t have been so big and the crash would have happened sooner. Anyway, that’s not the point I was making. Anyone selling something in a commercial setting will get the best price they can for it, be it you or I selling a second hand car or kitchen table or a developer selling a house. Suggesting that the root cause of our problems was the “greedy developers” is rubbish. Where corruption and bribery came into play it was a different matter.



DB74 said:


> It's a pity we didn't have great minds like yours to guide us all safely through the boom!


 Thanks 




DB74 said:


> I would argue that there are 3 groups of people who have been badly affected by the property crash
> 
> 1. Banks
> 2. Developers
> ...


 I agree but homeowners are no more victims than anyone else.


----------



## Bronte (15 Jan 2010)

There is a fourth category affected and it is the non homeowners who will pay higher taxes and have less services due to the property bubble.  

There will also be those who will gain from the collapse.  Current house purchasers and investors probably.  Liquidation firms and accountants for the next year or so.


----------



## z107 (15 Jan 2010)

> There is a fourth category affected and it is the non homeowners who will pay higher taxes and have less services due to the property bubble.


There are lots of more categories:
1. Business owners facing huge rents, and increased charges and taxes and decreased sales.
2. Social walfare recipients
3. Taxpayers in general
4. Motorists - doubling of NCT for >10 year old cars, increased insurance, unmaintained roads etc.

The list goes on and on when you think about it. Noticeable exceptions could be TDs and associated cronies.


----------



## DB74 (15 Jan 2010)

Purple said:


> They could have rented, just like people do in other countries. Oh, and if enough people had stayed at home with mammy and daddy the boom wouldn’t have been so big and the crash would have happened sooner. Anyway, that’s not the point I was making. Anyone selling something in a commercial setting will get the best price they can for it, be it you or I selling a second hand car or kitchen table or a developer selling a house. Suggesting that the root cause of our problems was the “greedy developers” is rubbish. Where corruption and bribery came into play it was a different matter.


 
Renting houses would not have stopped the boom from happening. Investors were falling over each other to buy houses to rent. In fact if investors had been kept out of the market by way of tax discentives (eg Bacon report) then property prices wouldn't have risen so drastically because we wouldn't have had investors competing on an unfair footing with potential home-owners.

And anyway, up to recently (last 3-4 years), the rental market as a minefield for renters with people not knowing what their rent was going to be from one year to the next. How was anybody supposed to raise a family or put down roots if you had to move every 12 months.

BTW I have never suggested that the root cause of our problems is greedy developers. Of course they are/were entitled to squeeze every penny from selling their houses.

Just don't expect me to show sympathy when it goes wrong.


----------



## Bronte (15 Jan 2010)

DB74 said:


> Investors were falling over each other to buy houses to rent. In fact if investors had been kept out of the market by way of tax discentives (eg Bacon report) then property prices wouldn't have risen so drastically because we wouldn't have had investors competing on an unfair footing with potential home-owners.
> 
> And anyway, up to recently (last 3-4 years), the rental market as a minefield for renters with people not knowing what their rent was going to be from one year to the next. How was anybody supposed to raise a family or put down roots if you had to move every 12 months.
> 
> .


 
Here we go again with this. Not all investors were falling over in the rush to buy property. The yields were atrocious so it didn't make sense to buy. Apart from that the purchase price plus stamp duty were gone crazy. Do you know that Bacon's recommendations were implemented and had to be changed within 2 years because Bacon was wrong.

My own view is that young first time buyers lost the run of themselves. How could any sane person think it was a good idea to get saddled with a 100% mortgage on 7+ times salary, plus ficitional rent a room rent as income in a 2 bed box with half a parking space in the middle of nowhere and with no services and a mortgage term of 40 years. Someone please explain that to me.

No all landlords increased rents annually. I have never done so with a sitting tenant. I'm always glad to have a long term tenant and they are not easy to find. The rental market in most well regulated countries is index linked, that is perfectly normal. There was nothing stopping you negotiating a long term lease at a fixed rent. You'd be amazed at the queue of landlords who'd like that.


----------



## Bronte (15 Jan 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> The list goes on and on when you think about it. Noticeable exceptions could be TDs and associated cronies.


 
Actually that's a better way of looking at it.  Who has not lost anything?


----------



## DB74 (15 Jan 2010)

Bronte said:


> Not all investors were falling over in the rush to buy property. The yields were atrocious so it didn't make sense to buy. Apart from that the purchase price plus stamp duty were gone crazy. Do you know that Bacon's recommendations were implemented and had to be changed within 2 years because Bacon was wrong.


 
Yes I'm well aware that the Bacon report was implemented and then the changes reversed.

I'm also aware the investors were able to get 100% mortgages (well before owner-occupiers) on the strength of other investment properties without ever having to stump up a deposit and then those investors were competing with homeowners who had to come up with a deposit.

Obviously I can't speak for every landlord/tenant arrangement but, for example (to counter yours), the house next door to me has had different tenants in each of the last 4 years. Each change is as a result of the landlord increasing the rent to the point where the existing tenants can't afford it.

Anyway we're going miles off topic at this stage and this ground has been covered so often there's no grass left on it! We'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Bronte (15 Jan 2010)

What is the point of the investors going after McNamara if he owes more than he is worth?  Wouldn't it be better to let him try and trade his way out of the mess.

How does the debt order go?  If you have 20 building companies and 10 hotels all in different companies and you've also given person guarantees what would be the order.  Banks presumably first with their mortgages but then what?  When he gave the personal guarantee to the Davy investors did they not check his worth, how did they do this?  Did they know his indebtedness and that he'd also given personal guarantees for other business?


----------



## Staples (15 Jan 2010)

Bronte said:


> Do you know that Bacon's recommendations were implemented and had to be changed within 2 years because Bacon was wrong.


 
They were reversed alright but I'm not so sure they were wrong.  The impact was detrimental to a lot of vested interests whilst also reducing the tax take from stamp duty.  Given a bit of nerve, they may have proved to be effective.

I don't think the reversal of the recommendations was for reason of helping your regular Joe to get ontothe property ladder.


----------



## haminka1 (15 Jan 2010)

IMHO - I see no reason why anyone should feel sorry for McNamara. While the current development might hurt his pride, he'll never end up penniless and homeless. Anyway, he did it quite cleverly, with his company officially having nothing to do with his debts and then he'll go and declare personal bankrupcy. 
He gambled high and these people can win or can lose - and if they lose, it's going to be a lot. That said, it will be the taxpayers paying most of his losses, not him. I'm certain he made sure him and his family will not suffer.

Btw - isn't there already enough threads about property developers and the Celtic Tiger boom based on consume and property?


----------



## MANTO (15 Jan 2010)

haminka1 said:


> btw - isn't there already enough threads about property developers and the celtic tiger boom based on consume and property?


 
+1


----------



## Firefly (15 Jan 2010)

Staples said:


> There's a distinction between those who paid (what we now know was) over the odds for their principal residence and those who paid over the odds for discretionary items such as holiday homes, second cars,quote]
> 
> 
> They're all purchases and all have to be paid for. Whether it's a principal residence or not, the cost, value and repayment terms should have been more thoroughly analysed by the purchasers. Given that the primary residence is such a big purchase whereby the buyer does mortgage their future you'd think a LOT more consideration would have been taken


----------



## Firefly (15 Jan 2010)

DB74 said:


> Renting houses would not have stopped the boom from happening. *Investors were falling over each other to buy houses to rent.*


 
Increased supply = reduced rent.


----------



## polo1 (15 Jan 2010)

Thanks for all your replies.. This thread has gone into a bit of a rant again about property developers the government and the banks, which wasnt the attention.

I am glad that we have some people amidst us that can see the wood from the trees..

I know that no bank, developer or government put a gun to my head and told me to buy my house in 2005. I did that on my own free will and am suffering the consequences.

For the record I would say that McInerneys and McNamaras are two of the better builders in the country, in terms of quality and design.

I would hate to get to my 60th birthday, and have to resign from a company which was in my family after working hard and building up a business by taking risks and helping the economy grow, created employement and now to have to walk away without the real benefit of any of it. 
I am sure that Bernard McNamara will not be on the breadline but he should have had a better future than that which is ahead of him. For me he looks a lot more than 60 and has aged significantly in the past months. I dont think that he purposely set out to be in the situation he is in now with any malice.. For that I feel sorry for him and his family... enough said.


----------



## DB74 (15 Jan 2010)

Firefly said:


> Increased supply = reduced rent.


 
In a closed shop yes. But we were going through a phase of importing people to help build houses and then a portion of these houses were going towards housing these same people. We couldn't build houses fast enough at the height of the boom.


----------



## Firefly (15 Jan 2010)

DB74 said:


> In a closed shop yes. But *we were going through a phase of importing people to help build houses and then a portion of these houses were going towards housing these same people*. We couldn't build houses fast enough at the height of the boom.


 
Exactly the reason not to buy I would have thought


----------



## haminka1 (15 Jan 2010)

polo1 said:


> For the record I would say that McInerneys and McNamaras are two of the better builders in the country, in terms of quality and design.



I used to live in an estate built by the McInerney and the reason why we did not buy the apartment and only continued renting it was the absolutely poor quality of the housing. No insulation, huge cracks in the walls, in the first apartment we lived in the uninsulated wiring was put so close to the water pipes that we were getting electric shocks when touching the water taps or in the shower. Both bathrooms were leaking. The second apartment which was built in the second phase had, again, both bathrooms leaking /the water was literally streaming down the wall when we were taking a shower/ and we were told by the tilers who did later repairs that the tiles were loosely glued to the wall with no additional insulation. The door in the ensuite shower was actually too big for the opening and they crammed it violently in. The first water pump was broken, i.e. no water pressure in the house when we moved in and the built-in dishwasher was connected so badly that it was constantly leaking water. They put in the second pump and then fixed the dishwasher with the result that the washing machine stopped working because they messed it up. The walls were damp no matter what we did. 
If this is the better quality, I shudder at the thought on how the "worse quality" developers built their apartments.


----------



## MrMan (15 Jan 2010)

haminka1 said:


> I used to live in an estate built by the McInerney and the reason why we did not buy the apartment and only continued renting it was the absolutely poor quality of the housing. No insulation, huge cracks in the walls, in the first apartment we lived in the uninsulated wiring was put so close to the water pipes that we were getting electric shocks when touching the water taps or in the shower. Both bathrooms were leaking. The second apartment which was built in the second phase had, again, both bathrooms leaking /the water was literally streaming down the wall when we were taking a shower/ and we were told by the tilers who did later repairs that the tiles were loosely glued to the wall with no additional insulation. The door in the ensuite shower was actually too big for the opening and they crammed it violently in. The first water pump was broken, i.e. no water pressure in the house when we moved in and the built-in dishwasher was connected so badly that it was constantly leaking water. They put in the second pump and then fixed the dishwasher with the result that the washing machine stopped working because they messed it up. The walls were damp no matter what we did.
> If this is the better quality, I shudder at the thought on how the "worse quality" developers built their apartments.


 
there is the possibility that this was an exceptional case, but if anything it highlights the need for a proper snag list.


----------



## onq (16 Jan 2010)

polo1 said:


> I am sure I am going to lambasted for writing this.
> 
> I have just been reading todays papers about Bernard McNamara and saw him on the news last night also. I am finding it difficult not to feel a bit sorry for him (as a person).
> 
> ...



Businessmen are tough cookies and Bernard McNamara is no exception yet you could see he was visibly upset and determined to act to limit the fallout to himself.

He has a low-key in demeanour and I admired the fact that kept his father's name on the company out of respect and planned to hand it on to people who had supported him in a timely manner.

In the 1990's I worked with Bernard McNamara on two projects with another architectural firm - he was tough, fair, courteous and a quick study.
When problems arose on a project that needed his input he was in the meetings helping to sort them out, not off playing golf somewhere.

His was one of the few firms I know of that retained its own in-house architect to help maintain standards of detailing and workmanship and achieve compliance with the building regulations which the industry was still coming to grips with.

He was a can-do kind of guy, not a whinger, which is more than can be said of some of those who've criticised him here.
Although we didn't always see eye to eye, he earned my respect and I have a huge amount of sympathy for the man.
I hope he gets through this and goes on to enjoy his well-deserved retirement.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]


----------



## zag (17 Jan 2010)

I feel vaguely sorry for him in the way that I feel sorry for "Joe Smith & Sons, Plumbers since 1874 (well until last year when they went bust)".  A family business, tradition and name is gone - this is undoubtedly bad.

However, if Joe Smith said to his punters "Arragh, sure don't worry about the payment end, I'll personally guarantee the money to you, sure what can go wrong ?  You stand to make millions from this new plumbing yoke, it's all the rage and you can sell it on to 'norms' for a multiple of what I'm selling it to you for." I think this may colour my view of the loss of the family reputation.

Just like the home buyers who weren't forced to buy at inflated prices, he wasn't forced to give this personal guarantee.  Since when was he the Bank of Bernard ?

At the end of the day, the whole money thing is a bit, erm, notional.  He owes €60m.  Give or take.  On this deal.  There could well be more.  He doesn't have €60m, so he's not going to be able to pay it back.  The people he owed it to - did they actually have €60m sitting in their back pocket looking for a perfectly good factory to buy and knock down ?  No.  Unless I'm mistaken they didn't have the readies sitting there.  They were on a promise from the banks that they would get €60m if they could get this deal.  They got the deal.  They got the money.  The banks went BOOOOOOOOOOOM and now you, me and the rest of the poor sods are the ones paying off that €60m bit by bit by bit.

So, no, not really, I don't feel unduly sorry for him or the people with the €60m on a promise.

z


----------



## Complainer (17 Jan 2010)

haminka1 said:


> I used to live in an estate built by the McInerney and the reason why we did not buy the apartment and only continued renting it was the absolutely poor quality of the housing. No insulation, huge cracks in the walls, in the first apartment we lived in the uninsulated wiring was put so close to the water pipes that we were getting electric shocks when touching the water taps or in the shower. Both bathrooms were leaking. The second apartment which was built in the second phase had, again, both bathrooms leaking /the water was literally streaming down the wall when we were taking a shower/ and we were told by the tilers who did later repairs that the tiles were loosely glued to the wall with no additional insulation. The door in the ensuite shower was actually too big for the opening and they crammed it violently in. The first water pump was broken, i.e. no water pressure in the house when we moved in and the built-in dishwasher was connected so badly that it was constantly leaking water. They put in the second pump and then fixed the dishwasher with the result that the washing machine stopped working because they messed it up. The walls were damp no matter what we did.
> If this is the better quality, I shudder at the thought on how the "worse quality" developers built their apartments.





MrMan said:


> there is the possibility that this was an exceptional case, but if anything it highlights the need for a proper snag list.


And the need for effective enforcement of building standards by building control officers. I hear that one of the upsides of the construction downturn is that building control officers now have time to do their jobs properly and revisit sites to ensure that required changes are made.


----------



## MandaC (17 Jan 2010)

I don't think he is looking for sympathy......and I actually think that both ONQ and micmlos posts are quite telling - in that they have had personal dealings with the man and speak of a good person - a genuine professional and courteous individual.  Also the fact that he is standing up and doing the interviews, not skulking away anonymously - like some of the others.  He took the risks and failed.

I personally worked on some of those hotel projects (not macnamara ones) and I could tell you stories of greedy individuals, some of whom I now see having their come uppance, but even more who have scuttled away into hibernation with their money still intact and no reprecussions whatsover.  You could soon tell who was genuine and professional and who was out for a quick buck on the back of someone else.  Mr. McNamara falls into the former category in my eyes.

I can't see him taking an easy approach and applying for the Artists Exemption.

There are too many people trying to blame someone else - quit the blame game.  I do feel our politicans have let us down and will never vote FF but ultimately we make our own financial choices.

Nobody made me queue on a rainy Saturday morning in west Dublin for what I knew was an overpriced shoebox in an estate of 700 houses.  I did it myself.  

This country will not improve until we all stand up and take responsibility for ourselves.


----------



## Yachtie (17 Jan 2010)

I've never met Mr. McNamara but my husband has and my husband's family know the McNamaras well as my late father-in-law was an architect and dealt with McNamara builders for years. 

I have yet to hear one person who has actually met or knows Mr. McNamara to say one bad word about him or his family. They kept a low profile throughout the boom, treated their employees well, paid the Revenue Commissioners, built good houses and did a lot for the charity. Surely thousands of people benefited from McNamaras taking risks. 

My impression wasn't that Mr. Mcnamara was looking for anyone's sympathy but is facing the challenges that lie upon him and his family the way any decent and genuine person would. For that, I wish him and his all the best. 

I would just like to comment on 'need to buy ASAP' first time buyer mentality of the last 5-6 years. I knew a man who was obsessed with buying a property - saved €1000 a month for deposit, received brochures for every development in south Dublin,... In 2005, he decided to put a booking deposit on a €385k two pokey bedroom apartment in South Co. Dublin (could easily be back of beyond but it's south of Dublin on the map). I kept telling him that if he kept saving and waited, the property prices will have to come down but he was having none of it. Fast forward to late 2009: those very same apartments are selling for €300k - €320k, if he kept saving for 4 more years, he would have had another €45k for deposit (original deposit was about €31k) AND if he bought the same place now, his mortgage would be €244k instead of €354k. €110k difference is worth waiting for 4 years IMO.


----------



## marshmallow (18 Jan 2010)

MandaC said:


> I can't see him taking an easy approach and applying for the Artists Exemption.


 
Just wondering why would the Artists exemption be relevant in this case, or be 'the easy approach'?


----------



## Staples (18 Jan 2010)

Yachtie said:


> €110k difference is worth waiting for 4 years IMO.


 
It is if you know it's coming but even the so-called-experts (the McNamaras of this World) didn't call it right.  If anyone was convinced that prices would fall so dramatically, they would have sold their principal residence and rented.

The reality,however, is that rents were also at their peak in 2005/06.  While hindsight is wonderful, I think it's reasonable that people would have considered it prudent to get onto the property ladder while it was still within reach.


----------



## terrontress (20 Jan 2010)

Staples said:


> If anyone was convinced that prices would fall so dramatically, they would have sold their principal residence and rented.


 
I know of a manager in one of the major banks that did this.

He had been preaching doom and gloom for years but managed to call the time right and sold.


----------



## Towger (20 Jan 2010)

Staples said:


> If anyone was convinced that prices would fall so dramatically, they would have sold their principal residence and rented.


 
AIB did exactly that with many of it's buildings, including it's HQ!


----------



## Bronte (21 Jan 2010)

Towger said:


> AIB did exactly that with many of it's buildings, including it's HQ!


 
That's very interesting, I wonder why they decided to sell, would like to see the notes on the meeting where it was decided to sell, should be part of the new banking enquiry as well.


----------



## Firefly (21 Jan 2010)

bronte said:


> that's very interesting, i wonder why they decided to sell, would like to see the notes on the meeting where it was decided to sell, should be part of the new banking enquiry as well.


 
+1


----------



## bonzos (21 Jan 2010)

This guy was a FF county councillor who went on to make a fortune from several huge contracts over the years due to his party connections...alot of his wealth has been tranfered over to his family in recent years!!!!I have yet to meet a millonaire FF member who plays by the rules!people should feel sorry for the unemployed of this country who are paying the price of a greedy few!


----------



## Gordanus (22 Jan 2010)

Purple said:


> I agree completely; the government created the environment where capital was sucked into construction rather than export focused businesses. Builders just reacted to that. I always get a laugh at the simple minded people who talk about greedy builders and developers and how they overcharged for houses. They didn’t overcharge; people overpaid. Anyone who has ever sold their house needs to ask themselves one question; did you a) seek to get the highest price for the property or b) did you sell it to the buyer that you thought was the most needy? If the answer was  “a” then you are no different from any developer or builder that sought to maximise their return while operating within the law. If you think otherwise then you are an idiot.



I never thought I would ever agree with anything Purple had to say - being of a diametrically opposed political opinion - but you're dead right here.

In a capitalist society, where your assets are your worth, he risked all, he gained a lot, and in the end he lost.  I feel sorry for him as a person.  I tend to be risk-averse myself despite being s/e, but know how much our society needs people to risk their assets for future gain.   Being risk averse meant that I did not expand my business despite all the temptations to do so and so I've ended up ok.  

It's the builders who built estates in the middle of nowhere that I really feel sorriest for, as well as people who bought them.  Estates that will end up being knocked down because there's an oversupply of houses-in-the-middle-of-nowhere (ghost estates).  Everyone bet on the future, and the future let them down.  Both the builders and the buyers bought into the crap peddled by the media (don't forget the power of advertising ie estate agents ads subsidised the newspapers).

And now the media are well overselling "there's a recession on", and thus making the situation even worse.


----------



## Firefly (22 Jan 2010)

Gordanus said:


> Estates that will end up being knocked down because there's an oversupply of houses-in-the-middle-of-nowhere (ghost estates)


 
I think this is likely. In a corporate scenario where the share price falls too low for the board of directors, one of the options is to perform a share-buy back, which usually results in the price of the remaining shares to rise. By knocking these ghost estates a little demand might be infused into the market - people will still need housing, but not the bland commuter estates perhaps.


----------



## Yachtie (23 Jan 2010)

Staples said:


> It is if you know it's coming but even the so-called-experts (the McNamaras of this World) didn't call it right. If anyone was convinced that prices would fall so dramatically, they would have sold their principal residence and rented.
> 
> The reality,however, is that rents were also at their peak in 2005/06. While hindsight is wonderful, I think it's reasonable that people would have considered it prudent to get onto the property ladder while it was still within reach.


 
People who bought before the boom weren't losing out either way. Those who were so blinded by need or desire to own a property or five and were willing to pay over the odds (and driving the prices up by the same means) are the ones who are now suffering. Those are the very same people who bored the rest of us to tears with how much equity they have in their house(s) at dinner parties. 

Developers, builders and auctioneers merely jumped on the band wagon. 

I am not an economist, a banker, and estate agent or a FF member but a pure and simple logic made me believe for a long time that there would be a turn. Once it took two of more than average salaries, €30k deposit and a promise of a spare room tenant to be able to buy a mid-terrace two bedroom house 20km off the far side of Mullingar, anyone with a grain of common sense could see that the prices would have to drop. Only because nobody would be able to afford a home. If target customer can not afford to pay the ticket price, the seller has to reconsider. 

Plus, we have been hearing of ridiculous amounts of money being paid to private landlords for social housing (or whatever it's called) for years. Governments of some European countries dealt with the same problem by buying out private properties and using them for social housing. This not only drove the cost of social housing down but also private rents and property prices. If the Irish government did this while we still had money to burn, a lot of our problems would have been solved before they even surfaced.


----------



## Staples (25 Jan 2010)

Yachtie said:


> Plus, we have been hearing of ridiculous amounts of money being paid to private landlords for social housing (or whatever it's called) for years. Governments of some European countries dealt with the same problem by buying out private properties and using them for social housing. This not only drove the cost of social housing down but also private rents and property prices. If the Irish government did this while we still had money to burn, a lot of our problems would have been solved before they even surfaced.


 
Yes, but "while we had money to burn", house prices were at their peak and the wholesale intervention of the State would have further inflated the bubble. In any event, the role of the State as landlord has not been overly successful. The role carries costly repsonsibilities in terms of maintenance, upkeep, which make the option uneconomic.

A more useful role for the State might have been to use its collective bargaining power to increase rental standards and decrease rates, although at the height of the boom this may not have been realistic.


----------



## Firefly (25 Jan 2010)

Staples said:


> A more useful role for the State might have been to use its collective bargaining power to increase rental standards and decrease rates, although at the height of the boom this may not have been realistic.


 
Or popular


----------



## csirl (25 Jan 2010)

Have come across him a couple of times through work. Wasnt impressed considering his status in the construction world. Seems to depend a lot on political connections.


----------

