Bank imprudent lending 90 times salary / incorrect "buy-to-let" valuation €17m / acre

[honest]

honest; Brendan asked you a question. How much was paid for the 3 cottages?.

If you read the posts above, you will see that 1,410,000 plus other costs (stamp duty, solicitors fees etc ) was paid for the cottages.

An estate agent and a mortgage valuer that had in or around the same outrageous crazy over the top valuation on the property.

Incorrect. The "valuer" for the building society ( who afahk had no valuation qualification or training )valued it at 1,410,000. The mortgage was for 1.45 million. The nearest written valuations inc any from estate agents were for a fraction of that.

Is it me that finds it strange that you would be getting a mortgage on what appears to me a derelict site that would require further development..

very strange indeed.

Would have thought that all sides in the deal would look at a different type of financing structure.

correct. So why did the building society approve a "buy-to-let" mortgage? Its thought they had little or no experience of dealing with brokers in this market but that was not the borrowers fault.

The solicitor. I am pretty sure he would have made a few suggestions about getting an engineer to assess future planning possibilities etc..

Yes, the solicitor should have suggested that, but the borrower filled out a buy-to-let mortgage application and had it professionally verified that it met the requirements of the lending institution in being "in good shape and good security"

The mortgage lender. I would have thought that you would have had to go up the steps a bit even in those times before you would get the sort of money that we could be talking about.

Correct, so would I. The building society will not explain this.

I do not think that the receptionist was approving that type of money even then.

I never used the word "receptionist", or described her role as such.

Was there any projections etc. from an Accountant.
.

No. There should have been. His accountant was aware he had no proper job or income or business premises when taking out the loan. The borrower has tried, more than once and without success, to get figures or calculations from the building society showing ability to repay the mortgage. The building soc obviously lent the money without checking could it be repaid.

Was there an Engineer engaged at any stage.

Its thought the valuer had a certificate in Engineering as his qualification.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

You think building societies who lend money to someone who has no ability to repay the loan has nothing to answer for?

1. He had a site. Not sure what it was worth.
2. He had a mortgage-free house worth €800k
3. He had unspecified other assets

Where is his house now? Why doesn't he sell that to repay the mortgage?

And how do you explain their extraordinary valuation?

The primary valuation is what the buyer is prepared to pay. He determines that. The valuation organised by the building society should not be relied upon. Having said that, if the building society loses out in this case, they may have a case against the valuer if he grossly inflated the price of the property. But it would be difficult to prove. Property prices were very high at the time. Valuation is an art and not a science.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

The borrower has tried, more than once and without success, to get figures or calculations from the building society showing ability to repay the mortgage. The building soc obviously lent the money without checking could it be repaid.

Why is he asking the Building Society for this? Surely he should have been working this out himself when he bought the property.

He had assets to secure the loan. That is the main thing.

 

[honest]

I would also make the point that it seems like a long time over 6 years to lodge a complaint with Regulator/ombudsman.

Hindsight is wonderful, the borrower would have done it within 6 years if he could wind the clock back. He did not know about the 6 year limit then.
He did try to "solve the problem" by selling the property in 2006, and paid estate agents a lot of money for marketing etc, but there were no viewings or offers even then.

 

[honest]

Why is he asking the Building Society for this? Surely he should have been working this out himself when he bought the property.

If he was in a sound state of mind. However should'nt a financial instution look for ability to meet monthly repayments before it lends money?
I would imagine anyone else who goes in to borrow a smaller amount of money has to present some sort of financial projections to the financial institution, or ability to repay. Do you accept the building society was negligent in failing to look for this?

And should not the asset be fairly and accurately valued? It would not lend €250,000 to someone to buy a secondhand ford fiesta for example, so why did it lend the equivalent of 17 million an acre in the west of Ireland?

Is this sort of behaviour - imprudent lending - not at least part of the reason the banks / building societies are in the mess they are in? If you do not think it was wrong then, then you accept it will happen again and more lives will be destroyed?

 

[honest]

did it have planning permission for shop units or apartments maybe?

no

Who would rent a derelict building.

the only use for it now is as a tourist attraction / museum of some sort...which reminds me...anyone know of the next most expensive property outside of Dublin? The 17 million an acre in 2004 is a record by how much?

 

[honest]

Having said that, if the building society loses out in this case, they may have a case against the valuer if he grossly inflated the price of the property.

A representative from the building society was visibly shocked when he came from Dublin and saw the property just over a year ago. He spluttered and could not accept it cost the equivalent of 17 million an acre. He said the valuations would be investigated. This is recorded. However no result of investigations by the building society in to the valuation can be obtained, despite requests more than once.
All comparables from the area and a valuation in late 2005 by another valuer ( who noted the same faults etc as another valuer in the nineties noted) suggest the real value of the property was a small fraction of the €1,410,000.

 

[honest]

Valuation is an art and not a science.

That raises another point. If someone values a property for a financial institution, in what will be a major life-changing experience for the borrower, should that borrower have a qualification relevant to valuing property, or experience working for someone or some business that values property? Could someone used to e.g. pulling pints for decades become a home based valuer without appropriate qualifications / experience?

 

[SarahMc]

Did the borrower not instruct his own engineer /valuer?

What were the borrowers plans, did he hope to flip the property, redevelop the site or to rent it out as it was?

I don't think it is unbelievable, but I do think key to this is what assets he had secured against the loan.

Out of interest, what is the bank doing now, have they not moved against him at all, I'm presuming he is not paying back interest or anything near it?

 

[honest]

Did the borrower not instruct his own engineer /valuer?

What were the borrowers plans, did he hope to flip the property, redevelop the site or to rent it out as it was?

He did instruct and pay for his own engineer/valuer, it was the neighbour he knew who also happened to be the same home based valuer the building society used. Hundreds of pints he drunk in his company over the years. The borrower paid approx €500 of his own money to the valuer. That valuer now has the record for valuing the most expensive known land ever in Ireland outside of Dublin. The next closest I know anyway was a lot less. Anyone come across any other land valued at 17 million an acre, or even 12 million an acre, outside of Dublin? It does not have to be 2004 or January 2005 - any time will do. Incidentally, it was not in a tax incentive area either ( although it is in a run down side street of a country town, with other derelict property ), so that cannot be used to explain the record breaking ( by far ) valuation. Even main street proper shops in the main streets, or country mansions, did not make 17 million a acre, or anything close, unless anyone from around the country knows of some case? The IAVI, CSO etc could not come up with any other valuation like that.


What did the building society think they were doing lending such a person, who was attending a consultant psychiatrist, money on property which was not properly valued? If it had been properly valued, they would not have lent the money. The borrowers own bank thought the borrower was mad and would not lend him money. Wise bank.


It was a "buy-to-let mortgage application form" the borrower filled out and he was led to believe, in the written words of his lenders, the property was "in good shape and is good security". I do not know what you mean by flip? The borrower never flipped any property in his life. It was a buy-to-let mortgage / pension he bought not a pack of burgers. He was told "property was his pension", after being told the importance, in no uncertain terms by a so called expert, of having a pension, how inflation was going to lessen the value of money as it had in the past etc. The only flipping he was doing was flipping leaflets through letterboxes for a well known multinational diy chain - he was geting approx the minimum wage for that. As he found out after he took out the loan, the repayments needed to service the loan over the term of the loan was €125,000 per year net of tax. So in round figures you would need to earn €300,000 per year before tax just to pay for the mortgage! Would YOU or any prudent lender have lent money on this property to such a borrower? Yes or no? No surprise the bank will take a haircut when someone in the building society did not do their homework. Are you surprised we bailed out the banks when they lent like that? If the building society had behaved competently then the borrower would not have got the loan and he would not have lost everything and his life (not to mention the impact on his family) would not have been destroyed.


However it is not the end of the world. Two barristers have advised the property was never worth €17 million an acre ; not surprising when no other land or property within at least a few hours drive was worth - or sold for - anything close to that, then or even a few years after that during the height of the boom. The buyer has a number of years to try to earn money from his book and tourist attraction / museum, directly or by renting it out. In that timeframe or after that he may or may not go to England for a year or two. Happy days. The building society will eventually get the cottages but no more capital - they have already got more than the celtic tiger "realistic valuation" ( what any comparable property sold for even in the height of the boom ) of the cottages. Incidentally the cottages are thought to be 209 years old, not half that, but more research in to that is ongoing.


As for the people in the building society who were supposed to check the mortgage application, were supposed to check if the applicant had a proper job or business when applying for the loan, and were supposed to know something about property values - do you think they will ever make such mistakes again? I think they have withdrawn from that market.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=176584

 

[Brendan Burgess]

The buyer has a number of years to try to earn money from his book and tourist attraction / museum, directly or by renting it out. In that timeframe or after that he may or may not go to England for a year or two. Happy days

I suspect that the public would be much more interested in your story of bankruptcy than in your story of how you paid too much for 3 houses.

I think your story of the money you will end up paying to the two barristers/valuers will be interesting well.

So I suggest going bankrupt first and then writing the book.

 

[Bronte]

This is a very complicated story. Please confirm it as follows. Purchaser borrowed 1.4 Million for a derilict property that cost 1,410, 000. This property is now worth 3% of 1.4 million? The amount lent was 90 times purchaser's salary. So it looks like the purchasers income was irrelevant because he was such a man of means?

The person who did the banks valuation is a drinking buddy of the purchaser. Nevertheless the bank accepted this valuation. How did the bank think the borrower was going to service a 1.4 Million mortgage on a property that seemingly was making no income?

Did the purchaser get a surveryer's or engineer's report on the property.

How did the purchaser think he was going to repay the mortgage? How did the bank think he was going to repay it.

It seems the morgage was sometimes paid with other assets of the purchaser.

Someone who is mental health issues is now proposing to go into business to make money, do you really think this is a good idea. How is this renovation to be funded.

At some stage the property was for sale with an estate agent and 'thousands' were paid to them. Why were they paid?

Also barristers have been consulted, and who is paying them?

This whole idea was meant to be a 'pension 'pot' can you explain how?

And the thought that anyone would borrow 1.4 million without seeing a property, well that's outrageous. And no excuse is acceptable.

 

[honest]

Purchaser borrowed 1.4 Million for a derilict property that cost 1,410, 000.

Incorrect. He borrowed, via the buy-to-let mortgage application, 1.45 million for a property that cost 1.41 million.
There is a 40k difference.

This property is now worth 3% of 1.4 million?

between 3 + 4% of the gross purchase price. It was valued almost a year ago by a well respected nationwide chain of valuers/estate agents at €75,000. If you take out auctioneers selling and marketing fees and legal conveyancing fees if it was sold, and the fall in the market in the last year, it would obviously realise that bit less than €75,000.

The amount lent was 90 times purchaser's salary.

At the time of taking out the loan / that financial year as a whole, as confirmed by his accountant. The building society should have checked. Would it not be normal for a bank or building society to verify someones income / ability to repay, and perhaps make a phone call or two to check if the borrower was still in employment or still had a business or whatever?
Especially for a loan that size? The building society should have checked. The building society will not admit why that was not done. Why not?

So it looks like the purchasers income was irrelevant because he was such a man of means?

He was not a man of means enough to repay 2.5 million over 20 years by monthly repayments, or he would not have been delivering leaflets through letterboxes etc.

How did the bank think the borrower was going to service a 1.4 Million mortgage on a property that seemingly was making no income?

Thats the million dollar question! The bank itself seemingly thought as well the property was " in good shape and is good security", to quote the banks own written words.
The bank has been asked many times how did they think the borrower was going to make, or be able to make, the monthly repayments but they will not reply to this question properly - should'nt they?

Did the purchaser get a surveryer's or engineer's report on the property.

Only the one from his neighbour the engineer who he paid the approx €500 to, whom I think he trusted and who was also the banks valuer.

How did the purchaser think he was going to repay the mortgage?

He should have been asked that by the bank , but the buyer had health problems at the time and was not thinking straight. Cocktails of medication such as lithium, anti-depressants etc can cause difficulties in even relatively basic mathematical calculations, have side effects on peoples ability to drive machinery, side affects in relation to appetite, drowsiness etc. The buyer did ask what was the rental income likely to be but the lady in the mortgage brokers left that box blank on the buy-to-let application form, and he was told that the building society would check if the figures added up and if the buy-to-let was "in good shape and is good security". They were the experts. He was fobbed off.
Should'nt that box on the buy to let mortgage application form have been filled in? Otherwise, why did the building society have that box on the form? The building society will still not answer this properly. Still being fobbed off!

How did the bank think he was going to repay it.

Thats almost the same question as 3 questions ago. It was a buy-to-let mortgage application and clearly written as such.

It seems the morgage was sometimes paid with other assets of the purchaser.

No monthy capital repayments were ever made, but a lot of capital has been repaid from the sale proceeds of other property.

Someone who is mental health issues is now proposing to go into business to make money, do you really think this is a good idea.

Just because someone attented a consultant psychiatrist in 2004 / 2005 does not necessarily mean they have such issues now. Besides, the property could be rented out as the tourist attraction / museum, even at a very nominal rent if necessary.

How is this renovation to be funded.

Who mentioned "renovation"? To show yanks what cramped conditions people lived in 209 years ago, before their ancestors sailed to America on famine ships, the property does not need much renovation. The 5ft 6inch high doorways will be left that high to aid authenticity. To show people the property that was valued as the most expensive ever in Ireland outside of Dublin needs little renovation. A relic of the Celtic Tiger / symbol of bank mismanagement. I think everyone is agreed the borrower should not have got the money.
In certain areas of the country anything to attract tourism / employment is actively welcomed. Besides, the borrower has been working this past number of years and is more than capable of getting that project going.

At some stage the property was for sale with an estate agent and 'thousands' were paid to them. Why were they paid?

Because they asked for it in advance and because it was the done thing in that day ( 2006 ) to advertise property for sale in local and national press, which was quite expensive. Are you suggesting he should not have paid them / that they saw him coming as well? I think it not unreasonable those estate agents were paid in advance for their marketing expenses. Did you never sell or try to sell property? What other alternative would you suggest?

Also barristers have been consulted, and who is paying them?

I wrote "Two barristers have advised the property was never worth €17 million an acre". I never said they were "consulted" or "paid" which they may or may not have been.
In any case, even if they were, thats small money in the overall scheme of things. No further comment on that can be made.

This whole idea was meant to be a 'pension 'pot' can you explain how?

I do not remember the word "pot" being used. He thought it was a pension investment. One that was " in good shape and is good security", to quote the bank. Do you think such a very old ( 209 years) buy-to-let property, valued at €17 million an acre, was "in good shape and good security."????
When it opens, all visitors will be asked that.

 

[dereko1969]

I'm calling shenanigans on all this.

What makes you think people will pay good money to see a shell of a building that someone decided was a good investment? All this talk of making it a museum is just cracked - are you the owner?

 

[Bronte]

it would obviously realise that bit less than €75,000.


He was not a man of means enough to repay 2.5 million over 20 years by monthly repayments, .


! The bank itself seemingly thought as well the property was " in good shape and is good security", to quote the banks own written words.
The bank has been asked many times how did they think the borrower was going to make, or be able to make, the monthly repayments but they will not reply to this question properly - should'nt they?

Basically what you are saying is that because the borrower was 'ill' he should not have borrowed the money or been advanced the money. And that it's the banks fault he borrowed the money.

Let's keep this simple and go step by step.

1. How much do you think a property worth 75K can generate in income.
2. Does the property require anything to be done to it to become a tourist destination (ie how much), car parks, advertising signage
3. Are there running costs to it being a tourist destination
4. Was there one report done on the property or two? One by the banks valuer and the second one done by the purchaser's engineer/surveyer to show up building faults etc.
5. The question on whether barristers were or not paid is quite simple and there is no reason to duck it even if you consider the amount trifling.

To answer your question, yes I've sold property, and no I did not pay any auctioneer any monies in advance. I do understand for valuable properties that would go with the likes of Lisney's etc that would require brochures and advertising in national press that money would have to be paid up front for that. (I've some experience of that too).

Now we've had an incredible property collapse but unless you bought the biggest pig in a poke ever I fail to see how the current value can only be 3% of sale price. The purchaser who despite being suffering from ill health managed to borrow 1.4 million, with no income and no means to pay it back and managed to engage with a broker, hire a valuer, a solicitor, deal with a bank, hire and pay an auctioneer and in addition had the services of two barristers.

If we weren't living in the world we live in now (Irealand post celtic tiger) I'd say this story couldn't be possible be true, but when I read what passes every week now for what goes on, well your story is just as credible as any, just with a few more bells and whistles than most. Still doesn't prove that the purchaser made a mistake. A big mistake. Where does personal responsibility come into this story?

 

[honest]

I'm calling shenanigans on all this.

What makes you think people will pay good money to see a shell of a building that someone decided was a good investment? All this talk of making it a museum is just cracked - are you the owner?

I am not the owner but anyone who has seen the property has been astounded - indeed flabbergasted - that its the most expensive piece of property (per acre) ever outside of Dublin. For further explanation, see post no. 11:

" the borrower sees a gap in the market for a tourist attraction / shrine to the Celtic Tiger property era. What else can he do - retail and manufacturing are very difficult, and the borrower has no qualifications to get a job, especially at his middle age. Elsewhere in the west there is a museum of country life etc, but nothing much locally. The 3 terraced cottages are close to some surface open car parks, and there is a tourist office not far away. Rail and bus links are nearby. In wet days in the summer, tourists are looking for something to do / see.
He envisages leaving one cottage more or less as it is, to show how people lived 100 or 120 ( correction 209 years ) years ago. Maybe a few mannequins could be dressed in old clothes. Tall foreigners would think the 5ft 6 inch high internal doorways very quaint, how the little people of Ireland lived all those years ago in such tiny dark rooms! Another of the terraced cottages - say the one with the worst structural cracks - could contain the valuations on the wall - the one from the nineties, the infamous one from Jan 2005, the one from late 2005, and one or 2 others. A copy of the "buy to let mortgage application" could also be displayed. People would be standing on the most expensive land ever valued / sold in Ireland outside of Dublin.
The third cottage could contain perhaps a coffee area, and a place where people could buy copies of the book, even meet its author,the borrower.

People in Ireland and further afield seem fascinated with property prices in Ireland, and its envisaged p.r. / free publicity for the venture will not be difficult to get. Tourists would wonder how did an Irish building society value and lend so much money for so little, and they may be able to understand a little bit better why the banks and building societies in this country got in to trouble. It would be an education for the youth of today, who will be the adults of tomorrow. Having been to the very much visited Anne Franks house in Amsterdam, where visitors are taught history must not repeat itself, maybe people seeing the most expensive property in Ireland ( outside of Dublin ),and the state of it, will see first hand the craziness that happened during our tiger period, and how we must endeavour not to make the same mistakes in future generations.

It would be a way of getting some use out of the 3 cottages. It may also be a way of trying to pay more interest to the building society? It may be worth a try?"

At the moment the properties are empty, so any use is surely better than none? A few bits n' pieces have already been obtained. Tourists have heard about the extraordinary property bubble and crash in Ireland. They are curious. They ask about the price of property and the downturn. Where better to show them than the inside of a property that some years ago was valued as the most expensive in Ireland ( per acre ) outside of Dublin, and see what they think? One of the houses especially is nearly as basic as it would have been in pre-famine times. To Americans, thats ancient! If you have ever been to "undeveloped" parts of the world, have you not wondered what the inside of the locals houses look like / taken a peek if you could? And tourists here can see what stately homes look like, with their high ceilings, big windows, space etc. These cottages have to be seen to be believed, to get the atmosphere, lack of space and darkness. Its fascinating to see the woodwork / carpentry as basic vernacular buildings ( not stately homes or big houses ) had 209 years ago. One in particular is so awful its brilliant. Besides, its a country town, which gets a fair few tourists in the season, and all locals will tell you this town in particular is crying out for tourism attractions. Some other towns have plenty but not this one. God helps those who help themselves.

 

[honest]

Basically what you are saying is that because the borrower was 'ill' he should not have borrowed the money or been advanced the money.

What I think everyone realises is that the building society had no business lending money to someone who had no means to pay it back or meet monthly capital repayments. I am also saying that because this property was the most expensive in terms of millions per acre out of Dublin, that should have set alarm bells ringing before they lent the money. Was this buy-to-let "in good shape and good security" as the bank seemingly thought?

1. How much do you think a property worth 75K can generate in income.

As a tourist attraction, who knows yet, but an expression of interest has already been received in operating it.

2. Does the property require anything to be done to it to become a tourist destination (ie how much), car parks, advertising signage

There are car parks adjacent to the property - could not be better that way now. Yes it will need advertising signage etc.

3. Are there running costs to it being a tourist destination

Of course.

4. Was there one report done on the property or two? One by the banks valuer and the second one done by the purchaser's engineer/surveyer to show up building faults etc.

One report on each of the 3 cottages. It was the same person. The engineer/surveyor the purchaser knew, his neighbour, who he paid the approx €500 to, was the building society valuer.

5. The question on whether barristers were or not paid is quite simple and there is no reason to duck it even if you consider the amount trifling.

see previous answer. I assume they were paid, thats between the parties concerned.

To answer your question, yes I've sold property, and no I did not pay any auctioneer any monies in advance. I do understand for valuable properties that would go with the likes of Lisney's etc that would require brochures and advertising in national press that money would have to be paid up front for that. (I've some experience of that too).

This was a valuable property was it not, so why do you therefore question the borrower paying the advertising / marketing costs in advance, seeing as it was advertised in the national and local press and seeing as how he understandably thought it would lead to a sale?

Now we've had an incredible property collapse but unless you bought the biggest pig in a poke ever I fail to see how the current value can only be 3% of sale price.

Most people are astounded like you, and full copies of numerous valuations will be framed and on display in one of the cottages.
That will be one of the attractions.

The purchaser who despite being suffering from ill health managed to borrow 1.4 million, with no income and no means to pay it back and managed to engage with a broker, hire a valuer, a solicitor, deal with a bank, hire and pay an auctioneer and in addition had the services of two barristers.

lol. Thats over different years by far. And he did not deal with the building society himself or meet anyone from it when taking out the loan : only the lady from the brokers. And some of the above took place long after he drew down the mortgage and after he stopped his regular visits to the consultant psychiatrist.

Where does personal responsibility come into this story?

It was always in it. He admits he made a huge mistake in trusting people and in allowing the lady to fill out the buy-to-let application form, and what it led to. The borrower has had a miserable life since 2004, made huge sacrifices, lost nearly everything and will in time probably go to England. Do not the people who were supposed to check the mortgage have some responsibility too? The borrower is facing up to his responsibility by trying to find a use for the property as it is, and to make some income from it, however small.

 

[dub_nerd]

I went to the Colosseum in Rome and reckoned I could see as much as was worth seeing from the outside, without paying in. The idea that people are going to pay money to get into a derelict cottage on a side street in a rural Irish town strikes me as stark raving lunacy. Property bubbles are not that uncommon and are not remembered for very long, and to be quite honest many people in Ireland seem to want ours back a.s.a.p.

 

[honest]

I went to the Colosseum in Rome and reckoned I could see as much as was worth seeing from the outside, without paying in. The idea that people are going to pay money to get into a derelict cottage on a side street in a rural Irish town strikes me as stark raving lunacy.

I went to Amsterdam and there was a queue around the block of about 500 people to see Anne Franks house, and there was nothing specatular to see in it after all the waiting. Worth seeing all the same. I'm not saying the attraction will have the same pulling power, but still, just goes to show what can be done.


Who said they would necessarily pay in? There are tourists wandering around in the summer in this location, or not far away, looking for interresting things to see/ do / pass 5 or 10 minutes. I believe they would be intrigued to see the most expensive land ever outside of Dublin, and someone- perhaps in period costume - showing them around and explaining things in a real Irish accent. I believe the exact business plan still has to be decided upon, but perhaps admission may be free, with the revenue coming from coffee/tea sales, book sales, and especially for the Americans, a little piece of the most expensive land ever in a little jar. A piece of the "auld sod". It was €353 a sq ft plus stamp duty plus solicitors fees back in 2004. Or else a little piece of wood or a piece of a brick, the same as some people went crazy buying and collecting momentoes of the Berlin wall when it came down. There are a few other revenue streams to be exploited but because it is so unusual he said he does not want it discussed at this stage. Its one of these things that gains momentum, and with the existing help from someone experienced in the tourism sector I see potential.

I can picture the Americans when they go home.
" Hey Chuck, you'll never guess what I saw over in Ireland. Beside the open car park I came across the most expensive land ever in Ireland outside of Dublin. A buy-to-let at 17 million euro an acre...crazy I tell you. I even bought a little bit of it ha ha ha. See this little jar and certificate? Genuine original. And you know what, those goddam Irish must have been as small as leprechauns a few hundred years ago, the doors in the cottage were only 5'6" tall and so narrow I had to fit through sideways ha ha ha. And you think our banks are bad? Some fellow dressed as a leprechaun showed me documentation that those crazy Irish bankers who lent the money thought this buy-to-let, at 17 million an acre in a side street in a quaint little town was "in good shape and good security." He said "the bankers must have thought there was a pot of gold at the bottom of the garden, begorrah"! Naw, but there may be gold dust is this here little jar of Irish soil, surely the luckiest Irish soil ever to have been sold and valued for so much ha ha ha. Very interesting and entertaining. It brings to life and says a lot about that celtic tiger we heard about. "

Property bubbles are not that uncommon and are not remembered for very long, and to be quite honest many people in Ireland seem to want ours back a.s.a.p.

You will admit a 96% drop in the value of a buy-to-let is spectacular? And valuing property at €17,000,000.00 per acre in a side-street in a town in the west of Ireland is absolutely ridiculous?
If, as you say, many people in Ireland want ours back asap it just shows that Irish people are always interested in property, the price of land, a piece of the "auld sod". Think of the play " The Field".

 

[orka]

I can picture the Americans when they go home.

" .....It brings to life and says a lot about that celtic tiger we heard about. "

Except this isn’t really about the Celtic Tiger is it? Whatever small interest there might be in seeing some of the monuments to celtic tiger greed, I can’t see this being an attractive example. At best, the owner is inviting people to look at how he was the stupidest of all stupid celtic tiger investors. But if the facts are as you outline, this is actually about the sad exploitation of a mentally ill man with no-one to protect his interests. Not exactly a feel-good story for the tourists is it?

I am curious about who sold the property (not a name – just the type of person/connection to town, other interested parties), whether there was any connection to the valuer, solicitor etc. and how the price was set. If the property really was hopelessly overvalued at the time (which I think we all agree it was), who came up with the grand plan to set a price of €1.4M and think someone would pay it? I don’t get the impression from your posts that the valuer went in blind to the price and independently came up with €1.4M as the price – he did what most valuers at the time did – looked at the price and said ‘yup, that’s the value’. If he came up with the price independently, I would certainly look to see if there was any connection with the sellers or other interested parties.

And please, I think you can take it that readers have noticed your view that the price was (a) 17M per acre and (b) the most expensive piece of land outside Dublin. I presume you or someone competent has calculated (a) and I don’t know if (b) is true but there is really no need for you to repeat these ‘facts’ over and over and over – you seem so abnormally fond of repeating them several times in each of your posts, that it is hard not to think you are either the owner or a potential investor coming up with a marketing pitch for tourists.