Hurray for accBank?

C

canicemcavoy

Registered User
Messages
601
Is it a good thing that accBank are breaking the cosy Irish banker/developer cartel and actually getting these guys to pay up the money they own?
 
canice , I don't suppose the thought ever occurred to you that the Banks set the rules at the beginning, shoved the money at developers and on realising their own mistake, have now chosen to make the customers, and developers suffer.
 
mercman, I don't understand your point. How are accBank's customers suffering more than the customers of Irish banks?

In fact, as far as I'm aware, Rabobank (accBank's parent) is Ireland's only AAA rated bank, which can only be good for its depositors. Perhaps there is a link between this and their tough line on getting their loans repaid?
 
mercman said:
canice , I don't suppose the thought ever occurred to you that the Banks set the rules at the beginning, shoved the money at developers and on realising their own mistake, have now chosen to make the customers, and developers suffer.
Click to expand...

This post, to me makes no sense.

The bank are not making anyone suffer.

They are only seeking to get repaid monies which is has been lent out.

They are completely within their rights to take whatever measures (within the law, I hasten to add) to recover their money if the borrower does not comply with the terms of the loan.
 
callybags said:
They are only seeking to get repaid monies which is has been lent out.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing your point. However the Bankers prostituted the money to their customers. And the more lean the Bank the harder they tried to gain market share. In the case of the ACC, always known as the Farmers Bank - well they are getting their just deserts.

The same Bank launched a Property Syndicate early 2008 for European Continental Properties which they simply HAD to buy. They then railroaded large clients in to taking shares of the Syndicate. The values are now well down but no doubt if asked the Bank will blame others.
 
mercman said:
I'm not disputing your point. However the Bankers prostituted the money to their customers. And the more lean the Bank the harder they tried to gain market share. In the case of the ACC, always known as the Farmers Bank - well they are getting their just deserts.

The same Bank launched a Property Syndicate early 2008 for European Continental Properties which they simply HAD to buy. They then railroaded large clients in to taking shares of the Syndicate. The values are now well down but no doubt if asked the Bank will blame others.
Click to expand...

Mercman, why do you see it as reasonable that - say, an unemployed working class person from Summerhill is chased by banks for their debts, but when they attempt to chase billionaire developers, they are "prostitutes" and "getting their just desserts"?

What exactly do you mean by "railroaded", for example? How did they force people to invest? By 2008, the peak had well passed.

Your attitude suggests that foreign banks should never loan money in this country to businesses again, since, if they do, they are criticised for wanting it back.
 
canicemcavoy said:
What exactly do you mean by "railroaded", for example? How did they force people to invest? By 2008, the peak had well passed.

Your attitude suggests that foreign banks should never loan money in this country to businesses again, since, if they do, they are criticised for wanting it back.
Click to expand...

Like all Banks that were offering 'products', they invited them to dinners and Golf Outings. Showed them the product, loaned them the money to Invest, and that was it. I saw both sides of the equation - the 'must have purchase' of the properties and the 'must invest' smiley faces coaxing people to invest.

I quote the saying 'Don't go to parties that you're not invited to'. I never said that foreign Banks should not lend to business customers. They just simply did not know what they were doing, and because they chose not to be part of the Government's NAMA package and the Loan to Values went askew they panicked, with the result of pure Panic in the Commercial Property market.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mercman said:
Like all Banks that were offering 'products', they invited them to dinners and Golf Outings. Showed them the product, loaned them the money to Invest, and that was it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you originally said they were "railroaded" into buying property. Now you're saying that salesmen invited them to dinner and showed them a product. How is this "railroading"? By any standard, it's a normal sales tactic. Did a free dinner makes these men lose reason? I'm stumped.

I saw both sides of the equation
Click to expand...

What was your part in the equation?

because they chose not to be part of the Government's NAMA package and the Loan to Values went askew they panicked, with the result of pure Panic in the Commercial Property market.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they have seen that NAMA is going nowhere, and Rabobank want to retain their image.
 
While there is a certain 'fair-play-to-ya' feeling about what ACC/Rabo are doing, this is tempered by the knowledge that it could be one leg of the house-of-cards of builders/bankers that is ready to come toppling down. I'm not sure that this is in anyone's interests.
 
And I stand by what I said. People used to unfortunately trust bankers. If a Bank was offering product customers were of the belief that the Bank knew what they were selling. How mistaken they were ?? These are the facts. Hopefully others that will read this post will confirm the point.

I am unwilling to discuss my part of the equation on a Public Forum. Suffice to say that all avenues took a short cut on the purchase of the properties.

Rabobank which are a large reputable Bank more like want to minimise their losses rather than retain their image. They havew not signed up to join NAMA so they are doing a Solo run on these cases.
 
It is interesting to look back on the timing of AIB's sale of their Ballsbridge HQ, around the peak of the market.
 
Yes, canice, I think it is to be welcomed. If nothing else, establishing that distressed prices are currently 75% down from the value of the loans issued (never mind from the original valuation put on the asset) should give us all pause for thought as to what NAMA will pay for bank loans.
 
Could be useful for setting the benchmark prices for NAMA. If they are 75% down, then that's what we should pay.

My opinion, let the developers collapse, lets have the fire sale of property and get this thing over with asap so we can move on. People forget that while the fire sale is bad for the developers, its great for whoever purchases the assets - could help establish a new generation of entrepreneurs who got their break by being able to purchase cheap premises. Remember Ryanair post 9-11 - became the biggest airline in Europe by buying during the airline industry fire sale.
 
csirl said:
Could be useful for setting the benchmark prices for NAMA. If they are 75% down, then that's what we should pay.

My opinion, let the developers collapse, lets have the fire sale of property and get this thing over with asap so we can move on. People forget that while the fire sale is bad for the developers, its great for whoever purchases the assets - could help establish a new generation of entrepreneurs who got their break by being able to purchase cheap premises. Remember Ryanair post 9-11 - became the biggest airline in Europe by buying during the airline industry fire sale.
Click to expand...

Defeats the purpose of the whole exercise. If they were to pay 25% for the loans, the banks would be left insolvant and require more capital from the taxpayer anyway. There is no way around the fact that NAMA are going to pay over the odds for some loans and hope for the best.
 
csirl said:
Could be useful for setting the benchmark prices for NAMA. If they are 75% down, then that's what we should pay.
Click to expand...

In an ideal and fair country, this is, of course, exactly what should happen.

Unfortunately, we don't live in that country. It's not in the government's interest to cripple their main donors, especially people who know where bodies may be buried. NAMA, in its present form, will allow banks and developers to get away without putting their houses in order.
 
NAMA will also allow homeowners to retain soem value in their own home.

Consider a house sold by a developer in 2008 who's gone bang in 2009.

If the unsold house next door to the house sold in 2008 is 'fire-sold', then its price/value will have plummeted.

A steady manageable decline of asset-values is what is required, which is what NAMA is tryign to achieve.
 
Setanta12 said:
NAMA will also allow homeowners to retain soem value in their own home.

Consider a house sold by a developer in 2008 who's gone bang in 2009.

If the unsold house next door to the house sold in 2008 is 'fire-sold', then its price/value will have plummeted.

A steady manageable decline of asset-values is what is required, which is what NAMA is tryign to achieve.
Click to expand...
Really? Try selling it at that 'value'.

There is only price for homeowners who want to sell. Otherwise you are talking about cost. Value for something you have agreed a price on is a nonsense concept (it is too late to worry about value when you have already agreed the price and borrowed the money to pay for it).
 
Setanta12 said:
A steady manageable decline of asset-values is what is required,
Click to expand...

Actually, a steady managable increase in property prices was what should have happened but unfortunately, despite repeated warnings, it is far too late for that. To be honest, I'm not sure why a steady decline is better than a simple sharp shock. Is the Japanese situation - house price decline for 17 years in a row - really a better alternative? (Not a rhetoric question, I'm genuinely curious!)

On a tangent, is it true that Eddie Hobbs sold his house in 2007 and sat on the cash? Perhaps he's not completely a spoofer in that case.
 
Sunny said:
Defeats the purpose of the whole exercise. If they were to pay 25% for the loans, the banks would be left insolvant and require more capital from the taxpayer anyway. There is no way around the fact that NAMA are going to pay over the odds for some loans and hope for the best.
Click to expand...

Who says the taxpayer has to stump up? How about letting these banks go bust? Plenty more banks in the world who'd be only too happy to take the customer base (the solvent part) off their hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top