They may not offer the same "solutions" as the state owned banks (mainly extend and pretend because the taxpayers and SVR borrowers are paying for that)
They're still subject to the exact same laws as every other lender in the state.
They may not offer the same "solutions" as the state owned banks (mainly extend and pretend because the taxpayers and SVR borrowers are paying for that) but there are no laws applicable to the regular banks that don't also apply to funds.
Regardless of that fact, you should be afraid. Very afraid. So afraid you should vote for FF as they promise they'll regulate them. FF's proposal may be very vague, it may appear wishy washy or without substance, it may seem like it's only purpose is to get them on the tv or radio but remember, deep down they're the champions of the People.
In summary, legally it makes no difference
Well, his boss seems to be of a different view...Ed Shipley of the CBI stated on the record (8th December 2016) in front of the Joint Oirechtas Committee investigating the tracker mortgage scandal, that the CBI had lobbied very hard for these funds to be regulated like banks
My Danske mortgage has been sold to Proteus, owned by PIMCO / Goldman Sachs.
Are these buyers "vulture funds"?
We should be aware of the use of language.
AFAIK, every Danish mortgage is sold on by the originating bank.
Does the selling of a mortgage automatically mean that the buyer is a vulture?
If I reach an agreement with a bank to "extend and pretend" as you put it, how are taxpayers and other borrowers paying for it, if my repayments have always at least covered the interest? It's actually the opposite: I’ll probably end up paying far more interest over the lifetime of the loan.
By contrast, who do you think is funding the profits the vulture funds intend to make? That is, who picks up the tab for the write-down the loan is sold for in order to attract to funds in the first place? Oh, yes, that would be the taxpayer and other borrowers....
To the OP: whilst it's true tha the terms and conditions on the loan don't change, the bahviour of the lender may change, perhaps very significantly. As regulated entities, the banks can't just do what they want: they are subject to oversight and regulations from the Central Bank (however inadaquate they might be). Funds are not subject to that regulation and can do pretty much what they want within the normal constraints of the law that apply to anyone. So, yes, there is a very big difference.
Balderdash, of course it makes a difference. Ed Shipley of the CBI stated on the record (8th December 2016) in front of the Joint Oirechtas Committee investigating the tracker mortgage scandal, that the CBI had lobbied very hard for these funds to be regulated like banks, but the FG led Government of the time opted (ludicrously), to regulate the intermediate credit service provider instead (albeit, after been intensly lobbied by the vulture funds not to be regulated). So,from the vulture funds prospective, you can bet your bottom dollar, it does make a difference to them, otherwise why did they lobby Government so intensely not to be regulated.
That's not the experience of Ross Maguire SC of New Beginnings - he is quite clear that honest distressed borrowers are not disadvantaged when their loans are assigned to unregulated purchasers:-I'm not suggesting they would, or that banks don't have questions to answer too, but it is a very different kettle of fish in dealing with them.
Right, but if the funds were regulated can you name anything specific that would be different or of additional a benefit to defaulted borrowers?
Patrick Honohan expressed those concerns back in 2014 - prior to the passing of the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing) Act 2015. That Act amends the Central Bank Act 1997 to provide for a regulatory regime in respect of Credit Servicing Firms, bringing such firms within the Central Bank’s regulatory remit.the Government of the time, disregarded the Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland, Mr Patrick Honohan's concern regarding this issue.
Going back to the original post. Suppose I have a mortgage and am paying what I can towards to the bank by agreement. If it is now transferred to Vulture funds, will they still have to go through the courts to get possession of the house.
Put another way, if I am making reasonable payments, am I likely to lose my house.
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?