Brendan and David McWilliams on LateLateShow 26/Oct/12

there's a lot of newbie posters (and 1 or 2 not so newbie) on this site all of a sudden talking absolute rubbish. Real childish arguments adding nothing to the debate and only wasting space on threads.
If I did'nt know any better, I'd say some of those gobdaw AntiEviction groups around the country have joined the site following some recent TV appearances by Brendan
 
Why are there so many uninformed people posting uninformed comments?

These are the facts:

We do not have to pay for mortgage defaulters in foreign owned banks, ie Ulster Bank, NIB, and Bank of Ireland, these are not owned by the taxpayer and never will be.

As to our own future bank losses in AIB, TSB, the ESM will provide all the extra capital, not the taxpayer.

Please stop making uninformed statements like ''why should i pay for my neighbour's mortgage? '' because it's not true, you won't.
 
truthseeker said:
Wow - what a patronising and offensive post! Are only some people entitled to an opinion?
Click to expand...

everyone is entitled to an opinion of course. But it's undeniable that a lot of new posters seem to have appeared recently, all pushing an agenda, and coming out with some ridiculously childish arguments to back up their points.... trolling IMO
 
mark12 said:
Why are there so many uninformed people posting uninformed comments?

These are the facts:.....
Click to expand...
Those are your version/interpretation - that doesn't make them 'the facts'. The discussion of your facts should probably stay in the special thread created for them http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=173959 rather than forcing the discussion in 2 threads (at least until you get anyone/everyone to agree that your facts are THE facts)
 
Orka, so you want to keep talking about paying for defaulters in Ulster Bank, BOI, NIB... Ok fine, let me know when your bill arrives in the post.

I thought this was a proper forum.
 
truthseeker said:
Wow - what a patronising and offensive post! Are only some people entitled to an opinion?
Click to expand...

Delboy said:
everyone is entitled to an opinion of course. But it's undeniable that a lot of new posters seem to have appeared recently, all pushing an agenda, and coming out with some ridiculously childish arguments to back up their points.... trolling IMO
Click to expand...
I agree with delboy. And I've seen this on other threads too - people arguing forcefully and repeatedly, sounding almost intelligent but with no substance or back-up - and that might lead less informed readers to believe what is being said. Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion but it does drag the standard of the discussion down if the opinion is an unsupported rant that is repeated over and over. For example above - don't repay the Germans - okay - that's an opinion but what does it mean and what will be the impact? Yeah - don't pay the Germans, forgive the mortgages, ... - great opinions if there's a practical idea behind them but what does it add to the discussion?
 
I have to say I thought Brendan was to be applauded for his honesty regardless of anything... In fairness the truth is a lot of people took out mortgages way beyond their means in recent years.. Also those of us who were frugal and maybe extra cautious will effectively end up paying for others mistakes which is just as unfair maybe the banks taking equity in peoples homes as suggested would make sense you'd have to make sure it was done in a positive way though...

Whatever the numbers now theres gonna be a hell of a lot more in arrears in future in my opinion and we have to make sure to avoid another bubble at all costs...
 
mark12 said:
Orka, so you want to keep talking about paying for defaulters in Ulster Bank, BOI, NIB... Ok fine, let me know when your bill arrives in the post.

I thought this was a proper forum.
Click to expand...
I don't talk about paying for defaulters. I can see some merit in your view about the state owned banks. I object to any form of debt forgiveness that allows the borrower to retain full ownership of the asset because of the unfairness of selectively enriching some people (both the can't pays who in hindsight cannot afford the asset and the inevitable won't pays who will slip through whatever forgiveness criteria are set) and not others.
 

Where exactly does the ESM's monet come from though...I'm not being smart now I just dont know much about the ESM?
 

Btw I'd have to agree about some of these anti eviction groups a lot of what they say doesnt add up... Some of it dishonest though I appreciate some of the people they're choosing to represent have real problems...
 
I agree Orka, i'm also against debt forgiveness, because it is almost impossible to distinguish between a can't/won't pay.

My point was, let's just be honest about the cases where there is real bill for the taxpayer, otherwise we are just wasting our time.

For example, I don't care at all when the bank in question is foreign owned, same as any comercial deal between 2 parties, or in cases where the loss to the state owned bank materialises after january 2013.
 

truthseeker said:
Wow - what a patronising and offensive post! Are only some people entitled to an opinion?
Click to expand...

Please stay on topic and use the report post facility to bring things like this to the attention of the mods.

Thanks
aj mod
 
What about making all the residential mortgages non-recourse? It should be doable for the state owned banks. It may be more problematic with the foreign owned ones and BOI but no more so than forcing debt forgiveness of other kinds on them.

That way people in a hopeless situation can walk away but with the consequence that there is no windfall in getting to keep the property. Maybe combine it with a rent back scheme that allows them to stay in the property for a number of years until they can find a suitable alternative rental elsewhere.

People in negative equity but who can afford their repayments have a choice, walk away and start anew albeit with their credit history compromised for a number of years or decide they want to keep the property and thus keep paying. (BTW I think the compromised credit history is probably necessary fir a few years or the won't pays might be tempted to hand back the keys and then just buy a similar house nearby but now without the negative equity).

This should help sort out the “can’t pay” from the “won’t pay” mortgage holders as there is now a consequence for those who simply won’t pay because they think they will get a magic do-over.

Irish people (myself included) want to own their own house but owning one is not some fundamental human right (I would agree having a roof over your head is but everyone owning is not the only way society can achieve this). Lots of people (perhaps a minority in Ireland but the majority in many other countries including our overlords in Europe) don’t own their own house either because they could never afford one in the first place or they made a choice not to buy but to rent instead.
 
If we can send aid to Uganda, surely we can afford to help our own citizens who are momentarily distressed.

I am NOT an advocate of debt write off but I am an advocate of keeping people in their homes. By releasing them from their obligations the state will be left with a major deficit as most property purchased in the last ten years are in negative equity.

By the banks collecting "rental" each month from the debtors they are at least receiving interest or a percentage of, whilst still holding the "asset".

If the banks start selling property now they may well be throwing the bath water out with the baby. Let's not make drastic decisions, lets give people a time frame to recover, and hopefully for the economy to pick up again. If we don't wait we most certainly are looking at bailing the zombie banks out again.
 

Very interesting post. Never happen for homeloans but may indeed prevail for commercial lending in the future.

PGs are generally no good when you need them and cloud the whole initial credit process.
 
Your first point here is correct and puts the kibosh on any sort of wholesale debt forgiveness scheme, unless the state directly pays down the 54% of mortgages that the taxpayer does not own.

You keep banging on about that second point which seems to me to be totally wrong. When in 2014 the ECB supervision regime is in place and a state owned bank needs capital, this is what will happen.

The bank's balance sheet will be considered on a realistic basis allowing for future expected defaults and of course any past debt forgiveness. If the bank is underwater on this realistic basis the hole will need to be filled by the national government. Only then will the ESM recapitalise that bank.

If the realistic position is above water but still needs stress capital the ESM will buy the bank off the state for its net asset value and then subscribe the necessary capital.

Make no mistake. There will be no filling of legacy holes by the ESM. Any debt forgiveness scheme undertaken prior to the new regime will fall directly to the taxpayers one way or another.
 
Ok, so maybe the banks are being smarter than i thought, they know that the taxpayers are broke and won't inject any more money in the banks.

So they are keeping people on interest only and reduced payments so that the actual losses only cristalise after 2014 when the ESM quicks in, could i be correct?
 
Maybe, but the Germans weren't born yesterday. Before they get involved in any bank recap they will want a thorough transparent assessment of the bank's balance sheet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register