stop blaming mortgage holders

[in the mire]

One of my jobs is to do internal audits on our quality management system. I can spend loads of time and tie to loads of other people’s time auditing but if I look at the wrong areas or don’t understand how things are meant to work or don’t see trends in the information I gather then I’m not doing it properly. There’s a difference between good auditing and lots of auditing. My the same token there’s a difference between light/heavy regulation and good/bad regulation.



The banks should be able to take all the individuals assets, up to and including their pension and family home. After that if the debt is not fully discharged then the lender should have to take a hit for the balance.

Their pension???? Do you want the bank to take their shoes and socks also so they walk bare feet along the street hanging their head in shame. Get real....... also to compare your "internal audit job" should'nt the banks have been doing their own "internal audit" on the country and if they did, then they would have come to the conclusion that it was too risky to lend any more money for property as it was a bubble.... "take their pension" I've heard it all now.

 

[jetstream]

Or NO REGULATION in this case . Your on a different planet Purple, why not just bring back public execution while u are at it. I really have nothing more to say to you on the matter.


What Patrick Honohan said today:

"It's clearly time for the banks to ramp up their efforts in dealing with truly unsustainable situations," he stated.

"Enough capital has been injected into banks to absorb what I call unavoidable losses from unsustainable mortgages. Inefficiency of capital cannot be a reason to delay action," he added.

 

[truthseeker]

The banks should be able to take all the individuals assets, up to and including their pension and family home.

I wonder what the burden to the taxpayer of supporting such a person throughout their lifetime is versus giving them a hand with their mortgage now.

If we take away all their assets, including their pension, and they are also unemployed, then the state has to house, clothe and feed them (and maybe their families) - medical care (Ill assume they have also had to cancel their VHI), plus whatever other benefits people dependant on the state get. How much does this come to a year? How many years is such a person likely to be dependant on it?
Meanwhile the lender is getting bailed out by the taxpayer so the taxpayer is getting hit both ways anyway.

 

[Kerrigan]

Purple, why are you so anxious to get your pound of flesh? If the powers that be take your stance; than within no time we will have social chaos. What we are witnessing now is a piece of cake towards what will come down the line. As Jetstream rightly mentioned the banks will continue to be in receipt of our TAXES. It is a no win situation.

Truthseekerss post hits the nail on the head.

 

[Nationaldude]

The banks should be able to take all the individuals assets, up to and including their pension and family home. After that if the debt is not fully discharged then the lender should have to take a hit for the balance.

You mean the banks that have already been bailed out by the taxpayers with enough money to absorb defaults on mortgages?

So Joe Bloggs is now homeless, pennyless, I assume unemployed and dependent on handouts from the state to house, feed & clothe him and his family while the fat cats in the banks sit back and congratulate themselves on job well done?

Get real!

 

[Purple]

Their pension???? Do you want the bank to take their shoes and socks also so they walk bare feet along the street hanging their head in shame. Get real....... also to compare your "internal audit job" should'nt the banks have been doing their own "internal audit" on the country and if they did, then they would have come to the conclusion that it was too risky to lend any more money for property as it was a bubble.....

At the moment the banks can take just about everything you have and then go after you for the rest of your life for whatever you don’t have now. That’s unacceptable. It should be the same as a business; take what’s there now and wipe the slate clean. That way an individual can start again. At the moment they can’t. Not only that but interest will continue to accrue on the outstanding balance of the loan.
If the banks knew that they would definitely be exposed for the balance of whatever the borrower didn’t have if and when things go bang they would be more mindful of their exposure to bad debts.


Should the banks have been more careful (maybe less reckless would be a better way of putting it) over the last few years? Yes, of course they should. I wish there was some way of making them go out of business without screwing the whole country even more but it seems there isn’t. I wish the directors and senior managers could be charged with reckless trading and sent to prison for a long time, and have every penny they have (including their home and pension) taken away but it seems that our legislators and senior civil servants in the department of finance are incapable of framing legislation on white collar crime. Above all I with Bertie Ahern was in prison (or worse) but it seems he did “nuttin” wrong.
None of the above negates of mitigates the responsibility of a borrower to behave prudently or to face the consequences of their own actions.

 

[Purple]

You mean the banks that have already been bailed out by the taxpayers with enough money to absorb defaults on mortgages?

So Joe Bloggs is now homeless, pennyless, I assume unemployed and dependent on handouts from the state to house, feed & clothe him and his family while the fat cats in the banks sit back and congratulate themselves on job well done?

Get real!

There shouldn’t be any fat-cats left in the banks. The guys who were at the helm back in the day would be out on their ear by now.
If the banks write down or write off the mortgage the mortgage it will be the tax payer who pays. If the mortgage holder gets turfed out and had to rely on welfare to get by it will be the tax payer who pays. The banks are owned by us, no matter what way we look at this the tax payer pays. The only way the tax payer can minimise their exposure is to get what they can from Joe Bloggs. If said Joe Bloggs was silly/ lacked foresight/ lived beyond his means it is his more prudent neighbour who will now pick up the tab. The state is us and the banks are us. We’re carrying the can here. There’s nobody else.

 

[jetstream]

The banks have already received enough capital to write of mortgages as stated today the head of the Central Bank ..... fat cats are still in the banks and now AIB have got the go ahead to pay 1 Million Euro salary for a new CEO ..... talk about a kick in the b****** to the struggling mortgage holders

 

[Purple]

Or NO REGULATION in this case . Your on a different planet Purple, why not just bring back public execution while u are at it. I really have nothing more to say to you on the matter.


What Patrick Honohan said today:

"It's clearly time for the banks to ramp up their efforts in dealing with truly unsustainable situations," he stated.

"Enough capital has been injected into banks to absorb what I call unavoidable losses from unsustainable mortgages. Inefficiency of capital cannot be a reason to delay action," he added.

I agree with him but how does that work?
Someone borrowed for an asset they can no longer afford so the lender takes a hit so that they can hold onto that asset? Why? What about the people who didn’t buy assets they couldn’t really afford? What about the people who didn’t buy at all because they considered the market to be overpriced? BTW I’m not one of them; I bought my current house in 2004 and it’s now worth far less than I paid for it.
The banks should write off loans that they can’t get anything back on but they shouldn’t write off loans while the borrower still has an asset against which the loan was secured.
The Joe/Jane Bloggs that didn’t buy in a bubble now had to pay for the banking losses caused by his/her neighbours default while that neighbour holds onto their house? How’s that fair? What happens if/when the market recovers a bit? The neighbour now has an appreciating asset that they didn’t pay for. How’s that fair?

 

[Purple]

fat cats are still in the banks

No, nearly all of the directors of the state owned/supported banks have been replaced.

I have no problem with paying the head of AIB a million as long as he's up to the job.

 

[jetstream]

No need to write off the entire loan, just sit down with the mortgage holder and see what they can afford and work from that. The banks are not even doing that. The country will never recover if this continues, no spare cash means not taxes, negative growth and then back into a recession

 

[jetstream]

Yet 2000 AIB staff cannot get an agreement on a redundancy from the Government

 

[Purple]

No need to write off the entire loan, just sit down with the mortgage holder and see what they can afford and work from that. The banks are not even doing that. The country will never recover if this continues, no spare cash means not taxes, negative growth and then back into a recession

I agree. I've made the point here before that if the banks were more proactive in dealing with this there would be less clamour for the government to “do something” about it.

 

[onq]

No, nearly all of the directors of the state owned/supported banks have been replaced.

Sunny said this in another thread, yet all I could find was a reference back in April of 2011 that this was to occur in the future.

I'd appreciate a link

I have no problem with paying the head of AIB a million as long as he's up to the job.

I think that qualifying phrase is relevant.

I am not convinced that any person could justify charging that amount to a crippled bank with a broken brand.
I think that is an outrageous amount to pay anyone for a follow up role after someone botched the job and crucified shareholders.

I think most observers now agree that paying outrageous amounts like this hasn't attracted competent people to senior positions in the past.
It seems to be a means to soak up money from profits that should be returned to shareholders as dividends to make up for the previous share price collapse.

Now is the time for AIB to be seen to look after its customers and shareholders and build up the brand from the ground up, not re-running the cliché of having a "champion" at the top.

We've had enough of such over paid wonders.

 

[Purple]

I am not convinced that any person could justify charging that amount to a crippled bank with a broken brand. I think that is an outrageous amount to pay anyone for a follow up role after someone botched the job and crucified shareholders.

If it's a new guy who can turn things around then I've no problem with it but yes, the qualifying phrase is important (which is why I put it there).

I think most observers now agree that paying outrageous amounts like this hasn't attracted competent people to senior positions in the past.

Right back at me, as it were.

It seems to be a means to soak up money from profits that should be returned to shareholders as dividends to make up for the previous share price collapse.

Good management should add more to shareholder value than a €1 million salary will take away.

 

[Purple]

Sunny said this in another thread, yet all I could find was a reference back in April of 2011 that this was to occur in the future.

I'd appreciate a link

Sunny's link had a chart that showed most directors were replaced. Download the PDF and squint very hard at it, that's what I did.

 

[jetstream]

A competent Professor or an Economist from one of the colleges in Ireland would do a better job and for a salary far less than 1 million I would image.

 

[in the mire]

A competent Professor or an Economist from one of the colleges in Ireland would do a better job and for a salary far less than 1 million I would image.

the problem with these guys from colleges is that they can't put away the text book, they'd be lost without it. experience is what we need from some guy who will take a low salary and grow it with the company, that should be his incentive, he can leave when he wants then and he can demonstrate to his next employer what he can do therfore demand a good well earned salary, basically do what the rest of us do in our jobs!!

 

[monagt]

experience is what we need from some guy

We did that and got the T shirt. It was 'experienced' highly paid people who got us into this maybe we need to try the academics, can it be any worse.

 

[Purple]

We did that and got the T shirt. It was 'experienced' highly paid people who got us into this maybe we need to try the academics, can it be any worse.

Who, Morgan "what's a few tens of billions her or there" Kelly?
Those who can do etc.