Bernard McNamara - Do you feel sorry for him?

[DerKaiser]

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]

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

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

 

[MrMan]

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

 

[D8Lady]

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]

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]

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]

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

+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]

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]

+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]

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]

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]

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.

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

Thanks

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

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