There was a good article in yesterdays Independent entitled "Banks don't do charity - except for themselves". The article was written by Brendan O' Connor, though not a fan of his chat show, I do agree with most of his articles! The content of same is self explanatory.
As we regularly hear on our radio, one bank in particulars mantra, "your investments may go up as well as down", maybe this is a mantra the people of Ireland need to adapt whilst dealing with unsustainable mortgages!
The banks are still living on cloud cookoo. The disaster the banks have inflicted on this nation has yet to be felt for generations to come.
I agree that that’s the way it should be but that’s not what us borrowers paid for. It is a much better scenario though; interest rates would be higher so property prices would be lower (which is always a good thing) and people would not be saddles with negative equity in a down-turn.
I agree completely. Welfare and charity that helps people stay out of poverty is one thing, their fellow citizens giving them an asset is quite another.The idea that some people should be shielded from the consequences of their decisions, while others are not, is just not acceptable!
First we have the shareholders in BOI, AIB etc., many of these are people who were depending on the dividends from those shares to live on: old age pensioners, widows, people with disabilities who sunk their compensation into it etc... they have lost everything, so why should the tax payer not cover them?
And of course we have the builders, developers and other intermediaries who borrowed to put up the housing estates, offices and what not. At least they gave us employment, so perhaps we should not cover their losses too?
And we have the home owners, who like everyone else in this saga invested in something that has lost value, but unlike the other expect they are special and the taxpayer should come up for their mistakes... seriously.
If what was been asked for were no recourse mortgages, where by you hand back the keys and walk away, I'd agree. But the idea that someone should be allowed to continue living in nice four bedroom house, while some other poor sod who was careful with his money and is struggling to get by should carry the can is just not going to fly.
My point is not about giving debt forgiveness but fairness . .
But what is fairness in this context? If I borrow money to invest in a business opportunity and that opportunity fails, is it fair that the Bank or individual that I borrowed the money from should suffer part of the loss?
Banks lent money at a relatively low margin (2/3%) to clients to assist them to purchase property. While the Bank took the properties as security, their primary recourse was to the individual/s who borrowed the money and not to the security.
The banks priced in the risk in the interest rate ,
I haven't followed your link, but you are not seriously bringing the dis credited lender FreddyMac into it. You realise the chaos they caused in the USA?
FreddyMac and FreddyMay (or is it Mae?) poster boys for what is the absolute worst in bank lending practices. And who had to pick up the pieces on that mess do you think
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j...7oHYCg&usg=AFQjCNEGbUMWZzOpJ378Y3miEa-g86gB_w
Primary mortgage market survey in America Freddie Mac
30 year 3.39%
15 year 2.27%
5% fixed seems to be the norm , risk priced in .
We could do with a bit of that over here OR ARE WE PAYING MORE FOR LESS
The bank did not price that risk into the interest rate, that’s the point. The borrower was liable for the debt, above and beyond the price of the house.
So let the banks take out the red pen and start forgiving debt to those that need it and get this country back in the saddle and on it's way to real economic growth that will benefit everyone.
Wake up and smell the coffee!
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?