Hand Back the Keys

Artemis

Registered User
Messages
45
Considering the government, central bank, banks have not progressed the personal insolvency or come up with a workable resolution, should we not follow the New Beginnings/Laura example and create our own PI arrangement.

This would involve (the 10,000 plus) writing to the bank informing them we will hand back the keys and pay a realistic, affordable monthly payment, for the next six years, and that is closure on the matter.

If the bank do not agree to this within three months we pay nothing until we are summonsed to court, which will be at least a year later, and then we will probably, be committed to pay less then we offered the bank originally, and they will have a significant legal bill also.

To the moral hazard brigade, too little, too late. We are fed up waiting. We want to give our children a future and get on with our lives. We didn’t commit any crime. We are not rich enough to qualify for the NAMA treatment and the banks will not come to the table.



Could anything be worse for the economy/country than the current mess?



Do we have an alternative?
 
I disagree, this proposal forces the bank to come to the table and work with the borrower to agree a workable solution.



[FONT=&quot]The can has been well kicked and benefiting no-one.

[/FONT]
 
I disagree, this proposal forces the bank to come to the table and work with the borrower to agree a workable solution.

Do you serious think that other tax payers are going to agree to foot the bill for your house??? Because that is what it comes down to in the end. The politicians know very well that there is little support for this kind of a deal among the electorate hence the slowness to act on it...
 
Jim, the money will never be repaid on many of these loans. It is about facing reality, not the current mess that is making things worse for everyone.

The current borrowers in trouble did not ask the taxpayer to get involved, that was the banks, and we all know who benefited from that, Bond holders, Irish Banks and Developers.
The only reason taxpayers are involved is because of politicians and top bankers. There was very little support for this bit yet the decision was made in a matter of hours in the dead of night.
It is a pity we didn’t learn from Iceland. The current mess would be over long ago.
 
Do you serious think that other tax payers are going to agree to foot the bill for your house??? .

Why not?...They agreed to bail out the banks through a government mandated to make decisions for them through democracy...and there sure was and still is little appetite amongst the electorate for that...anythings possible in Ireland.
 
For this kind of proposal to have any chance of gaining ground you'd have to come up with a solution to the following:

- How do you refinance the banks after the write off, without raising taxes? The banks must have a T1 rate in line with Basle III, that is a given. Right now they are just about holding the line, but any big write off and the taxpayer would have to step in again.

- How do you keep a voter happy when he sees his neighbour get to keep his house, have his debts written off and let start all over, while he continues to struggle with his debts?

No government is going to run with this at present because the votes just are not there... And until you can address these issues, it does not matter what other arguments you bring up, it is not going to be a vote winner. At the end of the day there has to be something in it for the politicians too.
 
When a person defaults on their loan it is assumed that the taxpayer will be footing the bill, this is not the case for people who have their mortgages with KBC, NIB, ACC and Ulster bank.
 
Theoritically the OP has a valid point. This can has been kicked down the road for a time & the frustrations of many are evident in some of the postings on this forum.
It is unfortunate that the insolvency legislation has again been delayed. However, this morning Alan Shatter stated that it should be published by the end of June latest and formalised within 1 month (OK, we've heard this before!).
Frustrations and dissatisfaction are building up and the Bank's handling of clients in financial difficulkties is not helping to alleviate this.
I can see some merit in a large body of mortgagors coming together to force the Banks hand on this, but suggest that a little more patience (pending finalisation of the Insolvency bill) is warranted.
Brendan Burgess had some good suggestions on amendments to the heads of terms of the bill, which would avoid the issue of "moral hazard". Jim Power also came up with some very good ideas. Hopefully the legislators will take these proposals into account and we will see a bill that gives people an exit from their debt burdens, without seriously compromising the bad debt problems of the Banks.
 
When a person defaults on their loan it is assumed that the taxpayer will be footing the bill, this is not the case for people who have their mortgages with KBC, NIB, ACC and Ulster bank.

That's an interesting point. Is it known what proportion this is? I'd imagine it's quite small, e.g. a total of something like 10-15%. It'd also be interesting to know if the proportion in arrears is similar across all the institutions - it might give an indication of laxity of controls.
 
This is just an opinion but I get the feeling ,from talking to others and reading here, that people are less and less looking toward affordable monthly payments and more toward the New Beginnings example. The former would have been great until there was a realisation that the latter is possible (somehow).
 
When a person defaults on their loan it is assumed that the taxpayer will be footing the bill, this is not the case for people who have their mortgages with KBC, NIB, ACC and Ulster bank.

In those cases it is also likely to be taxpayers footing the bill - albeit in their role as variable rate mortgage holders from those institutions.
 
which in turn would lead to more defaults
and eventually, zombie banks would collapse, property would stabilise at its true value. The uncertainty would be over and the economy would begin to stabilise.
New independent foreign banks, (not glorified community employment schemes, funded by the tax payer) would enter the market, just as Bank of Canada attempted to buy EBS at no cost to the taxpayer but were stopped by Noonan, and a functional banking system would emerge.


Many of the current banking sector would be re-employed in the new banks, but senior strategic decision makers would be told where to go.


The surprising thing is all this could have happened in 2008/2009, at zero cost to the taxpayer .But instead we are in the hole for at least 70BN and at least four years from where we should be.

However all is not lost as we can still continue to throw good money after bad, form committees, write reports, ask who will pay for it? and the cycle goes on.
 
However, this morning Alan Shatter stated that it should be published by the end of June latest and formalised within 1 month .

Shatter mentioned hopefully by June and formalised by Autumn. There is no guarantee this bill will have any teeth in that banks can veto the insolvency. Also looks like they are trying to do a very very complex bill and most likely will be designed to give jobs to the boys (accountants, lawyers etc) instead of a simple procedure to go bankrupt as is the UK and Norway model for dealing with this situation.
 
Whose spinning what

I think that poor woman laura got a terrible deal.

If the bank wont take the house as a full and final settlement hang on in there and fight.

Even at that you are over paying them.
 
When a person defaults on their loan it is assumed that the taxpayer will be footing the bill, this is not the case for people who have their mortgages with KBC, NIB, ACC and Ulster bank.
The banks have been paid, bailed out given the money to pay the tax payer has already paid twice once more wont make any difference.

This mess will go on forever if the begrudgers and the liars spouting the moral hazard get their way.

The bank gets paid win lose or draw they are insured.
 
I think that poor woman laura got a terrible deal.

If the bank wont take the house as a full and final settlement hang on in there and fight.

Even at that you are over paying them.


You have got to be kidding. Laura got a great deal. One that anyone else would be and should be happy with.
 
I was one of the softies when it came to struggling young people in financial trouble and I often argued against those who said it was all their fault -I thought there were too many hard-heartened comments about people in trouble.

But Pied Piper - your "poor " Laura is causing me and many others to change views.
A well paid person on a relatively small mortgage (relative to her income compared to many other mortgages), who even had tenants paying her rent, just handed back the keys. And all that happened was the generous settlement whereby she pays back a few grand a year for a few years. Amazing !

Really, Pied Piper you are some kind of troll, aren't you? Just saying those things to arouse a grumpy old man like me. Either that or your a complete anarchist,happy to see an imminent collapse of the banking sector, housing market and social stability.
 
Back
Top