so the person just signs over their house to the local authority who then have to manage and maintain itâŚ
Valuations in hindsight are always easy. Lots of deals collapse and people sell for a lower number.
This isnât the public purse i.e. The State (as that is what this generally means).
This is about the general public being ripped off by another egomaniac who wants to start another political âmovementâ.
Why does Ireland need another left wing party? Now I donât mind, start them away as you just water down that vote, but the only reason is for this guy to get more media attention for himself.
The star fuckers in the media gave this huge public attention and provided them with a platform. This was a carefully stage managed effort. Donât take in the âundesirableâ addicts as you donât want that image projected out there and you want âordinaryâ people to look in need. The hypocrisy of this guy being in an organisation that has left a high value property idle for years, and one which they want to keep off the social housing list, is breathtaking.
You are determined to pivot back to NAMA. This is about Apollo House. If people wanted NAMA to take a bath on potential high value properties like Apollo House and to be âloss makingâ overall, they should have said. There was a decent article in the Irish Times about this last week. Politically NAMA could not have been sold to the public as such. If it was then Iâd say you lot would be having a moan at them for that- as I said,
damned if they do and damned if they donât. As always, thereâs always some magic wand out there for people like Paul Murphy and Brendan Ogle that will solve everything.
Do you have any comprehension of transaction costs? Do you have any understanding of due diligence processes required in buying a loan?
Letâs put the mortgage of 60 X Drive in Dublin on the market. Letâs get the neighbours all snooping at the mortgage documentation put in when buying the house.
Youâre going to say now just open it up to the home owner, which dispels your argument over putting it out to the free market for the highest price. And the moral hazard argument holds.
NAMA was set up to get huge loans off the state Balance Sheet so we could get back to paying reasonable rates of interest on the deficit we have to pay for public sector salaries, welfare and the limited services the tax payer gets in return for their taxes. It was also designed to try and get the banking system back up and functioning normally.
Iâve huge issues with NAMA and having a state owned asset agency controlling a market already littered with state intervention annoys me. I believe we reinflated the price of assets deliberately to win back international confidence, to help people out in negative equity and ultimately have not paid for the last decades property bubble. But I can understand the reason why it was set up.
The captain hindsights in here are utterly clueless.
1 Like
Itâs about NAMA. You and your fellow blueshirts are happy for the state to be absolutely fleeced as long as you get to sneer at a few homeless people and campaigners.
2 Likes
What about transaction costs? If mortgage holders were given the option to buy their own loan then there would be no transaction costs if they were successful. How was the actual sale a free market when the owner of the mortgage wasnât give the option to counter the offer of the hedge fund? The moral hazard argument has resulted in the state being worse off. So, morally and financially, it was wrong. Youâve also used the âcommercially sensitiveâ argument. More bluster.
You are comparing apples with oranges unfortunately.
The hedgefund wasnât buying an individual mortgage it was buying a parcel of mortgages.
Which is part of my argument. The way the loans were packaged ruled out the actual mortgage holders from getting a write down while giving outsiders massive write downs. Lot of mortgage holders were unable to pay back 100% of the mortgage repayments. If they were charged say 60% then it would have been more manageable, instead hedge funds were given the loans at 40% while the mortgage holder still had to pay 100%. Morally wrong and financially screwing the country.
I think debt writedown due to inability to pay is a separate issue to a select group of mortgage holders (some able to pay and some in trouble) getting a chunk of their loan written off through a NAMA type deal.
Who would have financed paying for the 60% discount mortgage in individual cases I.e hundreds of thousands of euros in most cases? If the mortgage holder had the cash or was financeable then why should they get a cheap mortgage above others and which bank would back them? If they didnât have the cash or werenât financeable I.e the distressed borrowers then who? If your answer is the State you can fuck right off 'cos youâre clearly just taking the piss.
1 Like
The loans were sold at 60% discount to hedge funds. Why were mortgage holders not offered the option to counter offer this write down?
Ok. For arguments sake there is a mortgage with outstanding balance of âŹ300k. I donât think thatâs unusual. For it to be sold at 60% discount someone needs to pony up âŹ180k.
Who would provide the home-owner with the âŹ180k?
The banks were fucked and anyway they were trying to take those assets off the banks so theyâre out.
Iâm assuming that youâre reasonably sensible and you arenât suggesting that the state gives the owner âŹ180k
In that case, i.e. your scenario, who pays NAMA âŹ180k?
2 Likes
Very very few have or will be evicted in the near future. Especially by these vulture funds. Courts will eventually award an order for possession and then stay it and stay it til itâs someone elseâs problem.
Some individual commercial loans being sold like this out of the funds and you have businesses bidding for loans of rival businesses to take control in back handed way. The barney over claridges and paddy McKillin a good example on a much larger scale
Forget the 300k. Itâs not fully recoverable. What NAMA had to do was get the best price possible. They decided the best price was 40c in the euro. Sold for 120k to hedge fund. Tax payer took the hit for the 180k loss.
One other option was to let mortgage holder counter bid. If they offered 60c in the euro and it was manageable for them then tax payer receives 180k. 60k more than received from hedge fund. Argument against is moral hazard. Moral hazard costs 60k. Thatâs not including the tax hedge funds didnât have to pay as they were set up as charities.
1 Like
The moral hazard was every mortgage holder in Ireland . All the selling off was the word of the ECB . They wanted dosh back and smaller balance sheets.
Again thatâs the Blueshirt line âthey made us do itâ yet when the EU ask them to collect 13bn from Apple they appeal the ruling.
3 Likes
Thatâs not the question I asked. My question was, if NAMA went down the route of allowing mortgage holders to bid on individual contracts where would the mortgage holder get the cash i.e. âŹ180k from? Do many people have that kind of cash lying around? How would that work under your proposal?
NAMA was set up by FF.
I wonder could credit unions band together and save some folks day?