That's incorrect. The banks wrote down the debt when they were transferred to NAMA but the developers, for the most part, still owe the full amount.
DerKaiser. You are ignoring the facts. 100% of NAMA clients have had a debt write-off, for up to 50%. Many are also receiving annuals fees up to 200K and may be paid a % of the future sale. Most will keep their private home and are not being forced into bankruptcy.
I think we all know the average Joe is being treated very different.
Home owners unite on Facebook;
"
This page is dedicated to all those Irish homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgage and at risk of losing their home.
Description
"If one family defaults on its mortgage, they are pariahs: if 200,000 default they are a powerful political constituency. There is no shame in admitting that you too were mauled by the Celtic Tiger after being conned into taking out an unaffordable mortgage, when everyone around you is admitting the same".
She was getting lots of compliments on her page.
That's incorrect. The banks wrote down the debt when they were transferred to NAMA but the developers, for the most part, still owe the full amount.
DerKaiser. You are ignoring the facts. 100% of NAMA clients have had a debt write-off, for up to 50%. Many are also receiving annuals fees up to 200K and may be paid a % of the future sale. Most will keep their private home and are not being forced into bankruptcy.
I think we all know the average Joe is being treated very different.
+ 1. The developers got no debt forgiveness and still owe the full amount.
That was the assurance given by the last government....the late Brian Lenihan said in the Dáil on October 14th, 2009, when speaking in reply to the debate on the second stage of the Nama Bill.He said: “Another misplaced claim that has been made during the course of the second stage debate is that this Bill represents a bailout for developers. This is just not so.
“Let me be clear – Nama is not designed to be and will not be permitted to operate in practice as a bailout mechanism for developers who have operated irresponsibly.
“The amount a borrower owes will not change because of the transfer of a loan from his bank to Nama. The agency will have a statutory duty to maximise the taxpayers’ return and will therefore be expected to use its entire means to this end. The Bill also provides the agency with the wide range of powers it needs to pursue borrowers and enforce security.
“In some cases this will mean that borrowers’ personal assets will have to be assumed by Nama. In such circumstances, I cannot understand how the misconception that Nama will bail out developers continues to run.”
Taking all three sources together and the lack of any rebuttals (feel free to post them) this reads like a bailout to me.According to Harry Crosbie the amount the borrower owes will and has changed and the purpose of Nama is not to maximise the taxpayers’ return (incidentally, I believe the word “taxpayer” is ideologically loaded and I use it here just because Brian Lenihan used the word).
I phoned Nama and asked to speak to their press office. I was told they did not have a press office, that their communications were being handed by Gordon MRM. I got to talk to the managing director and owner of Gordon MRM, Ray Gordon, who told me: “The priority of Nama is to recover the amount Nama paid for the loans”.
He went on to say that Nama would pursue the full amount in many cases, depending on the level of co-operation they had received from the borrower but often there was no point. He said the focus of Nama on recovering the amount Nama paid for the loans had been stated in the latest annual report and in statements made recently on behalf of Nama.
So there you have it.
Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I didnt write the following;Yea, that's right, we were all conned.
Yea, that's right, we were all conned.
Since 2008, about 90% of Directors have been replaced. More will follow in 2012.
Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I didnt write the following;
Home owners unite on Facebook;
"This page is dedicated to all those Irish homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgage and at risk of losing their home.
Description
"If one family defaults on its mortgage, they are pariahs: if 200,000 default they are a powerful political constituency. There is no shame in admitting that you too were mauled by the Celtic Tiger after being conned into taking out an unaffordable mortgage, when everyone around you is admitting the same".
I copied the above from the facebook page of Home owners unite.
The banks breach of fiduciary duty (if there was one) was to their shareholders. In theory a fiduciary should not profit from the fiduciary position so I wouldn't get hung up on the concept as a legal definition. I do agree that they were stupid but this isn't miss-selling insurance or a pension, it's a simple transaction (if a big one). It's "will you loan me X euro for this property?" The bank can say yes or no. When they roll in a car loan/personal loan and/or offer more than was asked for then they are crossing the line but that sort of selling isn't what's got us into this mess.We've discussed the concept of professionalism and the principle of fiduciary duty, which the officers of the banks appear to have disregarded.
The banks breach of fiduciary duty (if there was one) was to their shareholders.
Very hard to prove ONQ, nigh on impossible I'd say.No, the breach of fiduciary duty appears to have been to their customers to whom the financial service was offered.
Part of this service is a vetting procedure, which was disregarded in many cases, to the subsequent detriment of the customer.
The level of disclaimers offered on Estate Agents headed paper may allow them to escape legal liability for their part in this debacle.
With such a high level of disclaimer, you'd be forgiven for wondering where professionalism - such as it is - ended and sharp practice began.
Fundamentally, you cannot have a reckless borrower without a reckless lender.
The state also has a responsibility. All three parties should be held equally responsible and that will very quickly lead to a team effort in finding a workable solution.
The Irish behave like sheep. Posting thousands of comments on web sites is our idea of protest. I have no doubt that if Bertie, Neary and a few others were dragged from their beds and publicly flogged, our government would have a different attitude to fining a solution.
Very hard to prove ONQ, nigh on impossible I'd say.
As for professionalism, well, I take the concept with a pinch of salt. "Professionals" are as susceptible to human frailty and weakness as anyone else. There are as many greedy and unscrupulous doctors, solicitors, accountants and estate agents (and architects) as there are greedy and unscrupulous plumbers, shop assistants, IT consultants or painters. People are people, no matter what they wear to work.
Fundamentally, you cannot have a reckless borrower without a reckless lender.
That is the most incisive, pithy comment that has been posted on askaboutmoney in the past two years.
Thanks for stating that Sunny.
As of 19th April 2011, it seems that none of the Directors of Banks involved in the crisis had been replaced, with talk of action in 2012.
http://www.thejournal.ie/bank-boards...23846-Apr2011/
Have there been any updates since?
I take your point on the bad apples in professions, but the essence of professionalism is that they undertake to keep to a higher duty of care than the man on the top of the 46A Bus.
Bankers get paid way more than many professionals I know and seem to they justify this in part by claiming to be professional.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?