Ah. At least it's clear now. It's the banks fault for giving out too much money over too long a term. It's the people's own fault for wanting a house to call their own. But nothing is the EAs fault. They are but helpless and reluctant participants in the most grotesque swindle of Irish economic history.
Lisney 10% pay cut
- Thread starter xb_deai
- Start date
LDFerguson
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,663
I see - so estate agents should have refused to take orders from buyers unless they decided that the buyer could truly afford it?
FredBloggs
Registered User
- Messages
- 504
I don't think anyone is having a go at the ordinary workers in Lisneys and most would feel nothing but sympathy for them having a 10% pay cut.
M
mugwump
Guest
If we are to believe the collective press releases of the industry, the Irish market is going to bounce back any day now, so surely this is only a temporary pay cut?
Kemo Sabe, I am a first time buyer who paid over the odds for my home. This was my fault and my fault only. The EA or bank did not twist my arm. I think that we FTB's can make our own arguments if needs be. I certainly dont need you speaking on my behalf.
only the lame blame!
I merely pointed out that a poster has revealed that his income is to be reduced by 10% and how childish/inappropriate it is for other posters to seem to delight in his misfortune. For the posters that blame EA's for the boom period, I would suggest that you grow up. A house is for sale, purchasers decide how much they think its worth and it generally sells for the highest price, EA's don't control the pockets of purchasers. There are EA's that have been unethical in their dealings but they don't represent the majority, just as the EA's who have 'gotten fat' during the boom time are in the minority, don't forget that its generally the principals in the companies that are making the mega bucks and the employess are making regular pay.
Jethro Tull
Registered User
- Messages
- 262
I never said EAs alone caused it, they were one of many VI groups who stoked the fires, invented phoney bidders and tried to squeez every penny imaginable out of over stretched FTBs
EAs have been making money for jam for the last few years, now reality bites and I'm supposed to show sympathy? I am sitting at my desk playing the worlds smallest fiddle
Does an over stretched buyer not have a personal responsibility to stay within budget? Do you not think that in such a vibrant industry that the need for phoney bidders was redundant and used by the minority rather than being commonplace?. Finally, do you not find it difficult playing your little fiddle with quite a substantial chip on your shoulder?
Jethro Tull
Registered User
- Messages
- 262
But when that person is being hounded by an EA and listening to VI/FF cheerleading about 'Get on the ladder before its too late' rationality can go out the window.
100% of people I know who bought houses between the years 2003-2006 had the phantom bidder card played against them. were you yourself not rtying to persuade a seller in another thread not to reduce his asking price eventho he had zero interest at the advertised price
a nothing comment but I'll respond. No chip on my shoulder, I don't see how people who made such easy money during the boom times deserve sympathy when the market slows.
LDFerguson
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,663
Let's get the red herring out of the way. I suspect that nobody here would condone the illegal tactic of a phantom bidder. So if auctioneers who use this or other illegal practices are now feeling the pinch - no sympathy.
But for the rest of the profession, it's absurd to try to blame them for the property bubble. Auctioneers are employed by the vendor to get the best price they can for a house. What do you suggest they should have done when demand was surging - gone back to vendors to say "let's not get greedy here - let's stop the bidding at €X even though there's four other bidders willing to keep going."
But for the rest of the profession, it's absurd to try to blame them for the property bubble. Auctioneers are employed by the vendor to get the best price they can for a house. What do you suggest they should have done when demand was surging - gone back to vendors to say "let's not get greedy here - let's stop the bidding at €X even though there's four other bidders willing to keep going."
I think LDFerguson has covered that one. Your choice of language is sensationlist maybe theres an EA in you fightig to get out!
Apart from the fact that 100% of people you know could equal 1, how do you know it was a phanthom bid? I think I know the thread you're talking about and I advised that he reduced sensibly and not slash his price, how has that any relevance to phanthom bidding btw?
That kind of makes my point. there are I think 145 staff in lisney, and in many offices around the country there are more losing jobs, do you really think that all of those have really made their fortune? If anything it has been the investors making their money and any EA who invested wisely over the boom time will have made money too, but the people most likely to lose jobs will be those who were last in.
I have some sympathy with the ordinary workers employed by Lisneys, especially those not on commission.
However, I have absolutely none for the Directors, who are taking advantage of the employees with their show of solidarity, by pretending to suffer the same cuts as their staff.
According to the Indo article "The cut will also apply to Lisney directors, who last year took home pay of €5.9m, a 50pc increase on the previous year."
Five steps forward and one step back. Your heart must surely bleed for these people.
Murt
However, I have absolutely none for the Directors, who are taking advantage of the employees with their show of solidarity, by pretending to suffer the same cuts as their staff.
According to the Indo article "The cut will also apply to Lisney directors, who last year took home pay of €5.9m, a 50pc increase on the previous year."
Five steps forward and one step back. Your heart must surely bleed for these people.
Murt
F
Flying Tree
Guest
As another Lisney employee I would just like to say that this doesn't seem to be a temporary measure - there is a strong rumour doing the rounds that the pay cut was to originally be 20% but that they have split it up into two
10% now and another 10% in October!
Also, there are very few in the company who really know what is going on - we are still waiting for a formal letter to be given to all employees
Will there be a need for redundancies?
How many will be left after a 20% pay cut?
How many will be able to raise families, pay ever-rising food and fuel bills, and service the mortgage on their overpriced negative-equity shoebox when the pay packet is 20% lighter every week??
If this works, the management will be hailed as geniuses. Cut your workforce drastically without having to pay out a cent in redundancy money. Capital isn't easy to come across these days, yaknow.
This could be replicated across the private sector. Just you wait. How much of the private sector is unionised?
"This time it's different." And not in a good way.
How many will be left after a 20% pay cut?
How many will be able to raise families, pay ever-rising food and fuel bills, and service the mortgage on their overpriced negative-equity shoebox when the pay packet is 20% lighter every week??
If this works, the management will be hailed as geniuses. Cut your workforce drastically without having to pay out a cent in redundancy money. Capital isn't easy to come across these days, yaknow.
This could be replicated across the private sector. Just you wait. How much of the private sector is unionised?
"This time it's different." And not in a good way.
Thats absolute rubbish and you know it MrMan.
If the results were meant to be private why did EA's feel the need to publish any price?
Why did they feel the need to inflate the prices they did publish?
How is OK to publish an incorrect price in the "Region of" but not the exact price?
How far away from reality does it have to be to be within the law?(i.e. How much of a fabrication)
I may not have always agreed with you but I have always had a lot of respect for your previous posts on this forum and you have portrayed EAs in a positive light to me. I'm very disappointed in your take on the issue! How you can actually excuse this behavior is beyond me.
Maybe all EA's are the same!
The point i was addressing was the current situation where EA's aren't publishing sale prices. Another poster suggested that the reason was because EA's were upset at being caught out inflating prices, my reasoning was we are now not allowed publish prices without buyer and seller consent. The IAVI have instructed members in recent months that disciplinary action awaits any member that publishs a price (even a correct one) without the consent of both parties.
Your previous questions are valid points but I didn't address those points myself, so maybe there are crossed wires here, or I was taken up wrong?