Brendan and David McWilliams on LateLateShow 26/Oct/12

That's not quite fair, I think this is a great forum, I rarely agree with a word you say, but you have every right to say it. I don't agree with a word Brendan says but I am educating myself and preparing my defense and if you want to know how a ruthless banker thinks this is a great source of insight. The first line of defense is to know your enemy. Having said that I am a girl and I do get emotional at the news of people losing their homes and businesses. I was in the back of the high court watching an old man shaking with fear trying to defend his home and I did cry on the bus home. This is a human crisis.
 
Piedpiper,
Would you limit state support to those in trouble with their family home or would you extend the state intevention to people with investment apartments, commercial property or foreign property?
 
Existing support and structuring options are limited to the persons family home. Any further flavours of help should be the same.
 
Great comeback, well done and yes its all about context, always good to know whats out there and to respond.

If very hard to have perspective on any situation when you are in the thick of it and this forum is a brillant resource.
 
Either McWilliams or Hall mentioned an equity swap with the bank. Pay half the mortgage over, lets say 15 years. I've already exhausted this approach and got a firm no.
 
Wishes said:
Either McWilliams or Hall mentioned an equity swap with the bank. Pay half the mortgage over, lets say 15 years. I've already exhausted this approach and got a firm no.
Click to expand...

McWilliams mentioned it. For the audience, it sounds like a really nice idea. It has the ring of some clever financial engineering trick that solves everyone's problems.

It's another of the really simplistic solutions. All they have to do is a few numbers to see that it is nonsense.

A guide to "debt for equity" mortgages
 
I'm just watching this episode of late late show now. Whatever you think of Brendan's views, it is very clear that Tubridty was biased towards McWilliams. He completely cut him off on guarantee issue at start and never stopped interrupting him.
 
Renter7 said:
I'm just watching this episode of late late show now. Whatever you think of Brendan's views, it is very clear that Tubridty was biased towards McWilliams. He completely cut him off on guarantee issue at start and never stopped interrupting him.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was disappointed McWilliams wasn't grilled more on the bank guarantee.
 
Gardener said:
Yes, I was disappointed McWilliams wasn't grilled more on the bank guarantee.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was the correct forum to bring up the Guarantee. It brought the debate off topic.
And it also looked like Brendan was trying to blacken McWilliams with his very 1st contribution...and I'd say that turned a lot off people against Brendan straight away
 

Hi Delboy

Goo point.

What I was trying, but failed to do, was to show that Mc Williams is a great guy for big ideas. He just doesn't think them through. He sees no downsides. Many people listening to him on Friday would have thought "This idea sounds good" just like Brian Lenihan thought.

If I could rewind, I would have left out the bit about not thinking much of him as an economist. he is primarily a story teller and an entertainer. That is not a basis for analyis and economic policy formation.
 
Brendan, I think you are being too modest/polite.

Tubridy lead a disasterious MC. He failed to push McWilliams for answers to back up his comedy sketch analysis. There is no room for this caper in dire times like this.
 
I've been on this forum for a long time. I've both learned a lot and over times have become extremly vexed by some peoples response and sometimes wonder if some of the frequent posters are in fact moderators in the same room. This is one such thread

I want to add my two cents here, I absolutely curl up with anger when I hear that lending instutions are "doing everything they can to help mortgage holders", No they are absolutely not, they are helping the borrowers to help themselves in paying back the loan. Thats not helping!! Any lenders reading this, you wanna help? Take some of the risk and write of some of your rightful share of debt that is equally yours, after all we bailed all you lot out. Period

David McWilliams said hundreds of thosands putting the humain side on the statistics, some just see, ah, 66,000 homes, but how many people??!!

Lenders are getting the money back under the pathetic guise of "helping the borrower" by restructuring the loan, which is just ultimately extending the terms on the loans (and getting a bigger return) that they themselves have shrewedly surgically removed themselves of ANY risk. .

Also Brendan I have become suprised by your arguments throughout the forum and seen it in action on TV. Your old matra is always the same, "you borrowed the money, you pay back the loan", While I agree in pricinple, you talk as if there is a finite amount of money with an equal amount of debt in society. If everyone paid every penny back in the world you would imagine there would be no debt, right? Wrong, there would be (is) a massive cloud of debt left as there is not enough money to pay back the monies owed. And why is that, because as you and everyone now knows, it doesn't exist its as simple as that and thats what it all boils down to, you cannot get blood from a stone. Its like a mafia version of the game monopoly.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Brendan pro people having the choice to return their unsustainable mortgages and revoking the remainder of the debt (negative equity). This couldn't be more fair.

What's getting up peoples goat is - they want to keep the asset. Why should you be allowed keep the asset, not pay for it and throw aside your origional contract?
 

I couldn't agree more.

For the people on this forum that don't believe there should be a part write off of debt, why don't you ask for a return of your TAX that the banks have engulfed. There has been very few repossessions, that we are being told, so why not return the bailout. Very little money from the bailout has actually been used to go towards distress property losses anyway.

I feel sorry for people who are indebted to the foreign banks. They currently hold the supreme attitude of not being bailed out so feel they can treat people as they please.
 
I watched this show. Brendan you did not come across at all well. Immediately after McWilliams made his presentation for some reason you launched into an attack on him. You immediately looked bad by doing this. The format of this show for this debate I don't understand. It wasn't actually a debate, no idea what it was really meant to achieve. McWilliams is very good on TV, he has either prepared himself very well or has had professional coching. You were much better on the Frontline programme some time back.

Not sure what is the issue between you and McWilliams. But if your figures are better than his then you need to demonstrate this. I actually cannot remember what McWilliams point was, something about debt for equity swop, but it sounded plausable and good. On a once of viewing of a Friday night of a chat show - that would be my take on it.

And if I didn't misunderstand David Hall wants all people in NE to have their debts written off ?
 
Hi Bronte

I tried to do too much and got it wrong. McWilliams was being portrayed as some sort of visionary. He is nothing of the sort. He was largely responsible for the bank guarantee and I wanted to highlight that. I didn't get a chance to develop it.

I actually cannot remember what McWilliams point was, something about debt for equity swop, but it sounded plausable and good.
Click to expand...

This is what he said


You are dead right. It "sounds plausible and good". But it's absolute nonsense as I have demonstrated in this post: A guide to "debt for equity" mortgages

By the way, I can find no mention of debt for equity swaps during the Great Depression. I have emailed McWilliams asking him for a reference.
Not sure what is the issue between you and McWilliams
Click to expand...

My issue is the same as my issue with any economist or commentator who sees a simple solution to a complex problem especially, where there is no simple solution.

This thread discusses the numbers in the programme

McWilliams claimed that the greatest crisis facing the country is the hundreds of thousands of people who are facing arrears. He later said that there were 128,000 people in arrears over 120 days. There are 66,000 homes with mortgages in excess of 90 says arrears as of 30 June.
 
Bronte I agree with your summation on Brendan's performance. Unfortunately it did come across as an attack on the credibility of David McWilliams, rather than a debate on the substance of his arguements. The debt for equity debate will continue.
In effect, our banks are already in a situation, where (due to the constraints of MARP) they are currently effective owners of many of their Home Loan & BTL portfolios.
I fully appreciate the arguments of David Hall who would like to support a substantial level of debt forgiveness for those in negative equity. However, neither he nor other proponents of such a policy have offered any detail on how such a scheme could be practically implemented or financed.
The foreign and non-state owned banks cannot be forced to write-off debt without being adequately compensated. Further write offs by State owned banks would involve substantial additional losses for those banks. These losses would then need to be subsidised by the State. (i.e. the taxpayers). A lot of commentators on this forum have identified the fact that the State owned banks have already been "bailed out" and in return for that bail out should be prepared to take the hit on mortgages in negative equity. However, the proceeds of past bailout funding were fully utilised in supporting historical losses. New losses will require new funding. So effectively, those supporting negative equity write offs are supporting a taxpayer (not banks) funding of these write offs.
The difficulty with the proposals by David Hall and to a certain extent David McWilliams is that they are presented as sound bites rather than fully fleshed out proposals. If these people have fully fleshed out the costings and financing of their proposals we should be given the opportunity to examine them in detail. To be fair to BB, he has backed up all his arguements with detail and illustration. If we don't agree with them we have ample opportunity to look for weaknesses in the figures presented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register