I have argued in several threads that it was also because of heavy pressure from all sort of expert sources - bankers, mortgage advisors, the government.
If you look at their web site you will see that they represent investors as well - a lot of whom are ordinary householders with one investment property.What do the Irish Property Council care about ordinary householders considering it was their members who built and sold the overpriced junk in the first place.
There are so many that support the banks & blame the buyers on this forum it amazes me.
Either they didn't buy a house between 2004 and 2009 or they are students/renters/stay at homes praying for a total meltdown in property prices. Maybe they bought a house in 1991 and have it paid off.
Yes the borrower and bank are both complicit however the borrower carries the debt forever. Non recourse or sharing of the debt is the only answer.
The other way of sorting this is a one year bankruptcy, at least until we free the people of this debt burden created by Banks / Politicians & Civil Servant idiots that were asleep at the wheel.
I sick of seeing trolls on this forum point the finger of blame at those who borrowed in good faith, listened to Bank Economists/Bertie/Brian and invested in their future and the economy by purchasing a home only to find the whole thing was a giant pyramid scheme.
Not true. Banks are not paying, only taxpayers and borrowers are paying.They gambled. The banks gambled. Both are now paying the consequences.
The system in the US is a better system. Banks are also taking a risk on the value of the loan they give, because if the borrower becomes unable to pay they can hand the keys back.
Maybe if we had a similar system here, banks would have been more careful about the values they placed on property and the loans they gave.
Not true. Banks are not paying, only taxpayers and borrowers are paying.
Nobody but nobody is saying borrowers arent culpaple. They are. But unfinancially literate people relied on the 'financially literate' bankers who were literally throwing money at them. Most people wouldn't understand the first page of a mortgage agreement.
Bully for you that is obviously not one of the masses who were not proficient in financial accounting and economics to have made an informed decision - that is an informed decision against the majority opinion at the time. We all know the famous quote from Bertie about naysayers. Only David McWilliams was saying it was a house of cards - nobody else did until the cracks started to appear. Not even one newspaper as the revenues from property advertising were too lucrative.
The Financial Services Ombudsman's office is full of cases where people were sold financial products that were not suitable for their needs. Mortgages are no different.
I'm heartily sick of the blame game - it benefits no-one, I'd rather just get the country back working. I am even sicker of the attitude that it must be someone elses fault.
Not true. Banks are not paying, only taxpayers and borrowers are paying.
I'm sick of it, the blame game too. Seems to me some people will never own up to their own culpability in the mess.
The Financial Services Ombudsman's office is full of cases where people were sold financial products that were not suitable for their needs. Mortgages are no different.
One of the reposesion cases in court this week involved a 49 yr old person who had been awarded a 30 year mortgage. There is a strong arguement for saying that the bank in question should never have leant her the money on these terms and should share in the responsibility for potentially allowing a mortgage to run until someone was 79 years old.
Well let's take that case. What was the 49 year old thinking of?
"Yay, fooled the bank into lending me the money! A 30 year mortgage will be cheaper annually leaving me spare money to live the life I deserve because I'm worth it. I don't expect to be paying this back when I'm 79; when I get to 65, my house will be worth 4 billion euros so I'll sell it, repay the mortgage and buy a smaller house with the enormous profit I will have made"Well let's take that case. What was the 49 year old thinking of?
"Yay - another mortgage sold! A longer mortgage prolongs interest payments for us as less capital is paid back each year. We don't expect this 49-year old to still be paying off his mortgage when he's 79; when he gets to 65, his house will be worth 4 billion euros and he will repay his mortgage then"What was the bank thinking of?
Ultimately this argument that borrowers were at the mercy of the banks and advisors when it came to deciding that they could afford to purchase the mortgage they opted for is pointless. They are adults and their ignorance is their own to deal with, they cannot present naivete as an argument that justifies a payout by the bank. They weren't deceived by the bank. They were frequently complicit with the bank. The number of times I heard people's ruminations on how to get a mortgage for more than the bank was willing to lend them at the time was frightening. The number of people who massaged their presentation of their financial well-being in order to obtain the desired mortgage was disturbing.
How many people now looking to blame somebody else for a mortgage they took out expended time, effort and money on presenting a flattering picture of their financial health? I'd be inclined to say all of them.
How many of them still have not admitted to the unpalatable truth that they cheated themselves when they massaged their figures? Cynically, I'd be inclined to guess an unhealthy majority.
I do not mean to imply that all those in straitened circumstances did so. There is a considerable difference between finding yourself unemployed and finding yourself sitting with a severely depreciated asset on one hand and a large liability on the other that no longer is covered by the value YOU ascribed to the asset. The first person deserves compassion, the second deserves the lesson. Both may deserve some support.
As I already said, you can always sue if you wish but a couple of cogent points to consider.
1) Is the bank/broker the only party liable? Do you have any liability at all for your behaviour at the time?
2) If you are going to sue you should only sue where there is money available to pay out for you - so suing a bankrupt bank may simply be a fools errand.
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?