Don't knock the hindsight!How can someone so wrong be part of the solution?
How about this GEM. Do you consider this to be the thoughts of someone who can help?
If you’ve a real need to buy now – for example, if you are starting a family – don’t allow the fact that your job is a bit uncertain to put you off. If the worst happens, the government has ordered AIB and Bank of Ireland to lay off homeowners in arrears for at least a year, while other lenders must give them a six-month breather.
You can pull out selected quotes from Brendan Burgess until the cows came home. I could pull out ten times as many where he was right.
Have an objective look at the 11,100+ posts here on Askaboutmoney.
Anyway, see the remainder of my post - Neither would prove anything other than the fact that he is a human being. His long track record of working and campaigning voluntarily on behalf of consumers makes him an ideal candidate for this committee.
That's an incredible leap of logic you have made there. So he's a human... who isnt?
By your logic Willy O'Dea should be reinstated?
@LDF
You miss the point on quotes - support for 100% mortgages and particularly interest only mortgages, captured in "quotes", considered the family home as an investment vehicle - a tradable financial asset. Therefore it seems the family home should retain its status as a tradable financial asset in an insolvency process. http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=130961
The ongoing deliberations of the Law Reform Commission will be considered, specifically reform of personal insolvency, bankruptcy law and debt enforcement.
Willie O'Dea didn't step down because he made predictions that didn't turn out to be true, with hindsight. That's an absurd comparison.
Its plain for most to see that this committee or panel needs people who didn't tell people to invest in banks and who didn't tell people to get mortgages with shakey job prospects.
Bronte said:I'm glad Brendan is on the committee at least we can feel someone we 'know' is in there.
So he failed to see that a massive credit bubble was inflating a massive a massive property bubble.
A cynic might argue he did see these things but was making so much money from his large stack of bank shares that he was happy to keep quiet...
when you take a gamble about the future outlook and guess right and get some press coverage.Just wondered, at what point in my chosen profession will I be considered an expert? Will I know or feel it myself or will my peers tell me?
That seems fair enough, but then why is Brendan Burgess on this panel of experts? He's the same 'expert' who in 2007 recommended that rather than put money on deposit with the banks, people buy their shares??? I assume he wasn't a large shareholder himself, was he? Despite being bad advice that could be construed as a conflict of interest.when you take a gamble about the future outlook and guess right and get some press coverage.
I would invest in AIB or Bank of Ireland rather than putting money on deposit with them.
-Irish Indo, 18th August 2007.
The last thing you should do when a correction comes along is sell out. The losses at the moment are paper losses; they only become real losses if you decide to sell.
Here’s a question for Hugh Cooney, chairman of the government’s Mortgage Assistance Group. Should the taxpayer be called upon to help fund the mortgages of troubled borrowers such as Twink?
The actor has said that she is ‘‘actively working on a solution’’ after Bank of Scotland (Ireland) earlier this month lodged an application to repossess her family home.
‘‘Unfortunately, I find myself in this current situation - no different to half of the country that have lost their jobs or, like me, are single parents - trying to pay my mortgage, bills and raise two children on my own,” Twink said in a statement.
Except that she is not quite in the same position as half the country. She lives in a 300-yearold Georgian mansion in the south Dublin suburb of Knocklyon, for which she and her former husband, David Agnew, are estimated to have paid almost €1million, while spending a further €390,000 on renovations.
If the government were to agree a scheme under which someone in Twink’s position were to be offered reduced interest rates, longer mortgage terms, the rolling-up of outstanding interest, or even debt-forgiveness, there would be a corresponding impact on the balance sheets of the banks.
[...]
Then there’s the question of where you draw the line to allow people to stay in their homes. Should someone like Twink be forgiven some of her mortgage debt and allowed to stay in her mansion, or should she be forced to hand back the keys to Bank of Scotland (Ireland), a bank which gained a reputation for some pretty reckless lending during the boom years?
Is it fair to force a distressed borrower to sell at a time when there is effectively no market, forcing the borrower to lock in losses? Is it fair to ask an ordinary taxpayer on the average industrial wage to pay for (say)Twink’s mansion with his/her taxes?
[...]
The New York Times has reported that the [US] scheme has raised false hopes among people who simply cannot afford their mortgages, effectively delaying the day of reckoning for the banks and prolonging the economic uncertainty.
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?