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.
Frontline programme on mortgage arrears and negative equity
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
- Status
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.
+ 1. The developers got no debt forgiveness and still owe the full amount.
The average Joe isn't a limited liability company and will go to great lengths to avoid bankruptcy.
In theory. In reality all NAMA care about is recovering what they spent in the loans. As with the recent sale of UK loans, NAMA were shouting from the rooftops that they achieved 100% of the purchase price and interest. They didn't recover the full value of the loan that the banks gave and never will. The ugly side of NAMA is that developers will be treated differently but I understand why that is the case.
This was posted on NAMA Wine Lake on 27th January 2011 recording the words of whistleblower Mark Daly, a FF Senator, during an interview with Pat Kenny.
http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/ff-senator-accuses-nama-of-selling-loans-back-to-the-original-developers-at-below-market-values-%E2%80%9Ca-scam-of-monumental-proportions%E2%80%9D-he-claims/
This was posted on politics.ie on 13th September 2011.
[broken link removed]
This was posted on the The Irish Times on 5th of October 2011
[broken link removed]
I quote the following excerpts from the Time article -
The piece continues.
Happy to stand corrected by someone who knows the score better than has been reported to date.
http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/ff-senator-accuses-nama-of-selling-loans-back-to-the-original-developers-at-below-market-values-%E2%80%9Ca-scam-of-monumental-proportions%E2%80%9D-he-claims/
This was posted on politics.ie on 13th September 2011.
[broken link removed]
This was posted on the The Irish Times on 5th of October 2011
[broken link removed]
I quote the following excerpts from the Time article -
That was the assurance given by the last government.
The piece continues.
Taking all three sources together and the lack of any rebuttals (feel free to post them) this reads like a bailout to me.
Happy to stand corrected by someone who knows the score better than has been reported to date.
Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I didnt write the following;Yea, that's right, we were all conned.
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.
Yea, that's right, we were all conned.
We've discussed the concept of professionalism and the principle of fiduciary duty, which the officers of the banks appear to have disregarded.
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 agree. Apologies if I gave that impression.
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.
Money was cheap so loads of people bought it and the government didn't do anything to make cheap money less attractive (in fact they did the opposite). I don't see the banks as the bogymen here. They were part of the problem but not the root cause and they didn't engage in wholesale miss-selling or underhand tricks to con people into taking out loans. People made bad decisions and now they want someone to blame because they are hurting and/or feel stupid.
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.
productive
Registered User
- Messages
- 16
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.
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.I agree. The bankers should be sacked, the banks should to taken away from their owners 9shareholders) at a fraction of their 2007 value and the government who allowed it to happen should be turfed out... oh wait, most of that's already happened.
So, sack the rest of the bankers and what's left? Find a way to take their pensions from Neary and Bertie? After that what's left... yep, the people who took out the loans need to take responsibility for their own actions.
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
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.
Another poster posted a section from the Bankers code of conduct recently on AAM and this supports my assertion.
I don't think its hard to prove at all - a review of past lending practice and that which persisted in the Tiger will do.
That is the most incisive, pithy comment that has been posted on askaboutmoney in the past two years.
It's not really. A bank could lend money to someone with large savings and who can easily afford the repayments but then discover that as soon as they get the cheque, they decide to buy new cars, have numerous holidays and spend all their extra cash on going out. And then when things change, they blame the bank for reckless borrowing but at te same time forgetting about their reckless living during the boom years.
As I mentioned before, an interesting comment in the report was that the coverered banks only account for 50% of the arrears despite having about 66% of the mortgage market. That suggests that their mortgage books are actually not in the worst shape and were no where near banks like Bank of Scotland when it came to underwriting standards on mortgages. Banks did some stupid lending but some people did some stupid borrowing. However, that doesn't mean they should pay for their mistake for the rest of their lives.
Here is a recent presentation from the department of finance. There are plenty stories about it as well.
http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=7002
Not sure why they presented it in that format instead of a plain written powerpoint. I guess I am old school!
Over the last few years I think we’ve all learned that paying someone more doesn’t make them more honest.
That seems self evident to me but I must be a bit slow or just not be aware of the moral purification training that professionals go through (is it something like what Mr. Spock went through on Vulcan?).
I think so so-called professionals confuse self-importance with integrity.
- Status