Home Sweet Home - Apollo House Takeover

[tallback]

@Piles_Hussain

@tallback

In that case, i.e. your scenario, who pays NAMA €180k?

I wonder could credit unions band together and save some folks day?

The credit unions which subsequently required their own bailout? You suggest they should have started financing distressed borrowers?

[mikehunt]

They wouldn’t pay the 180 in one go. They’d continue to pay their mortgage but at 60% of what it was.

[mikehunt]

The decision to sell to vulture funds was heavily influenced by Noonan and Kenny.

[Piles_Hussain]

Oh yeah I member. Still though, might be a bit of a balm to the whole situation. Take the sting out of it politically. I wonder did the gubberment consider it.

[tallback]

@mikehunt

They wouldn’t pay the 180 in one go. They’d continue to pay their mortgage but at 60% of what it was.

I assumed that what’s you meant. Effectively your suggestion was that as a nation we nationalise large chunks of the mortgage market. Those who couldn’t pay still wouldn’t and those who could pay 100% just got a great big subsidy, a subsidy not given to every mortgage holder. The nation (which was pretty much bankrupt at this point) would take on additional debt which wouldn’t be recovered as quickly and additional risk. That’s before you get into all the political pressures that would result, think penalty points and TD’s getting medical cards except on a grand scale.

For what it’s worth I think that idea is bonkers. I think that individual mortgage holders bidding for their own mortgages if they could raise the cash or were financeable is also bonkers.

[tallback]

@mikehunt

The decision to sell to vulture funds was heavily influenced by Noonan and Kenny.

What’s “heavily influenced”? FG were the real gov at the time were they?

[tallback]

@Piles_Hussain

Oh yeah I member. Still though, might be a bit of a balm to the whole situation. Take the sting out of it politically. I wonder did the gubberment consider it.

I’d say they considered lots of things but their real options were pretty limited. It’s easy to Mon-morning quarterback now but the economic mood at the time was very different. Many people though property would fall much further and there would be higher defaults. It was that context that NAMA were trying to generate returns.

I think the tax decisions are very poor though and definitely deserve more scrutiny as to whether that was political or civil service driven (or if they just missed it and were asleep at the wheel again).

[mikehunt]

You’re complicating it. Namas job was to get the best price. They could have got more from the actual holder. They decided to give the write down to outsiders. Their argument, like yours, was moral hazard. I’d prefer to get the higher price.

[Tim_Riggins]

@Matty_Hislop

It’s 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.

How is it about NAMA?

You are now back to the “right wingers sneering at the homeless” when a second ago you were moaning that NAMA weren’t getting the best prices for these assets. Which is it? You are trying to have it both ways in your moan.

[TreatyStones]

@tallback

For what it’s worth I think that idea is bonkers. I think that individual mortgage holders bidding for their own mortgages if they could raise the cash or were financeable is also bonkers

Is that not exactly how restructuring works ?
Bank and borrower agree to a write off, borrower raises finance elsewhere and then the bank gets paid off in one go.

[Matty_Hislop]

@Tim_Riggins

How is it about NAMA?

There’s a clue in the ownership of Apollo House.

Today has seen a concerted attempt by the media to muddy the waters and deflect attention away from NAMA and the homeless crisis. It’s amazing in this day and age that so many gullible fuckers still swallow it.

[Tim_Riggins]

@mikehunt

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 wasn’t 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. You’ve also used the “commercially sensitive” argument. More bluster.

Are you for real?

Do you not realise the costs of fishing out individual loans, engaging solicitors on both side et cetera?

And please engage the argument regarding the state retrieving the “best price” and just offering it to the person who holds the existing loan? How can you reconcile that?

Once again like your bud Matty, you are trying to have it both ways.

The people really getting ripped off by NAMA are young renters and would be buyers, sadly.

[Tim_Riggins]

@Matty_Hislop

There’s a clue in the ownership of Apollo House.

Today has seen a concerted attempt by the media to muddy the waters and deflect attention away from NAMA and the homeless crisis. It’s amazing in this day and age that so many gullible fuckers still swallow it.

And I ask you again.

How can NAMA get the “best price” and not “rip off tax payers”, when it is going for social housing? You cannot reconcile these positions but are trying to have a foot in both camps. Easy for you though, a classic hurler from the ditch.

[gilgamboa]

@mikehunt

They could have got more from the actual holder

40c in cash now is a lot different than 40c over 20 years from someone who has already defaulted on you and may do so again

[Matty_Hislop]

I’ve no idea why you are raising these points with me.

My position is that NAMA is inherently corrupt and is not fit for purpose. As soon as the Project Eagle scandal broke it should have been stopped from selling any more assets pending a full independent inquiry but instead it has speeded up its fire sale.

[tallback]

@TreatyStones

@tallback

For what it’s worth I think that idea is bonkers. I think that individual mortgage holders bidding for their own mortgages if they could raise the cash or were financeable is also bonkers

Is that not exactly how restructuring works ?
Bank and borrower agree to a write off, borrower raises finance elsewhere and then the bank gets paid off in one go.

Yep, except in this instance the only two options for raising the finance are the institutions you’ve just taken the assets off (i.e. the Irish banks) or the state which has just taken the assets.

When they wrote down the loans its because they assumed that some people would pay in full and others wouldn’t pay much or any. The blended combination gave the write down value. Obviously it’s subjective - some of the vulture funds took a punt that there would be less default than NAMA expected or they would be able to manage that better. However, in @mikehunt scenario you give everyone a 40% discount on their mortgages. The default rate probably doesn’t change that much except in this scenario the lads who were paying the full whack now don’t have to. I’d imagine in that scenario your actual net return on the loan is a damn sight less than the 60% he proposes. That’s before you get into the fact that the state takes all the risk and all the associated political pressure as opposed to a cheque for the cash there and then.

[mikehunt]

The benefits of a restructure for current mortgage holder far outweigh those of selling on the cheap to a hedge fund. Mortgage holder get to keep their home. They don’t have to rely on welfare to house them. Stress related illnesses amongst families which have indirect impact on health services. Financially the country would receive extra money in the long term.

The only benefit for selling cheap to an outsider is a quick buck. The hedge funds have made a killing at the cost of Irish society and economy.

[mikehunt]

I never said everyone gets a write down. Only those who are in severe distress.

[tallback]

@mikehunt

The benefits of a restructure for current mortgage holder far outweigh those of selling on the cheap to a hedge fund. Mortgage holder get to keep their home. They don’t have to rely on welfare to house them. Stress related illnesses amongst families which have indirect impact on health services. Financially the country would receive extra money in the long term.

The only benefit for selling cheap to an outsider is a quick buck. The hedge funds have made a killing at the cost of Irish society and economy.

Are you suggesting all mortgage holders should have gotten a discount or only selected (distressed?) ones?

[Tim_Riggins]

Social Affairs Kitty Holland of the Irish Times, who has been to the forefront of giving these types of stories (including on this couple) air time, has been caught out on Facebook regarding this story. You would think the next step for her would be to print a correction. No however, messaging Brendan Ogle she said;

“ignore it Brendan … it will be ignored as a story and be nothing more than fish-supper wrapping by Monday … if you focus on it you only give it air-time”

Fantastic journalism from her.