Register to Comment
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 113
Like Tree1Likes
  1. #21
    MPB MPB is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,186

    Amazing how, when such a deal was recommended for ordinary mortgage holders, it was binned because of moral hazard.

    It is about time the 99% started to get wise to what the 1% in this country are up to.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #22
    olamp olamp is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,853

    Quote Originally Posted by MPB View Post
    Amazing how, when such a deal was recommended for ordinary mortgage holders, it was binned because of moral hazard.

    It is about time the 99% started to get wise to what the 1% in this country are up to.
    Mortgage holders in negative equity had better start their own campaign for debt forgiveness NOW!!!!!Don`t just sit back and get screwed ---DO SOMETHING ,FOR GODDSAKES!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #23
    DCon DCon is offline

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    10,895

    Quote Originally Posted by NotDumbOrCrazy View Post
    If I remember correctly, weren't the developers allowed withdraw their money before NAMA etc. kicked in? So it went something like this:

    1. Developer gets loan of 100 million.
    2. Developer withdraws 100 million into foreign bank account.
    3. NAMA etc. kicks in so the loan of 100 million is transferred to the state.
    4. And now: Developers loan is written off by 40%.

    So he gets to keep 40 million cash?

    Am I understanding correctly?
    loops us nicely back to this thread, and Lenihan's unexplained about turn

    http://www.politics.ie/economy/13874...eposits-8.html
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #24
    stanley stanley is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,937

    Quote Originally Posted by NotDumbOrCrazy View Post
    If I remember correctly, weren't the developers allowed withdraw their money before NAMA etc. kicked in? So it went something like this:

    1. Developer gets loan of 100 million.
    2. Developer withdraws 100 million into foreign bank account.
    3. NAMA etc. kicks in so the loan of 100 million is transferred to the state.
    4. And now: Developers loan is written off by 40%.

    So he gets to keep 40 million cash?

    Am I understanding correctly?



    The Dunner must be going apeshlte his loans are outside Nama, all he had to do was refinance with AIB or BoI and Bertie's your uncle, the half mill his missus has mislaid is great crack except it is probably not really theirs, probably some other bank's.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #25
    Baron von Biffo Baron von Biffo is offline

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    17,464

    Quote Originally Posted by The Lapsed Accountant View Post
    Didn't hear the interview but saw the heading in the STrib and was outraged. Then I read the article. Per the article the loans of each developer will be divided into Class A loans (which looks to be the recoverable ones) and Class B loans.

    "Although the borrower will remain liable for the Classs B loan, if they have sold all their company and personal assets and exhausted all means of repaying those loans, then NAMA will discuss options with them for the Category B loans, including releasing them from liability from their repayment. "if they've exhausted all options, worked in good faith, reversed any asset transfers and demonstrated there is nothing left to sell, we will look at an agreement with them" a source said.......However the source stated that if the property market recovers, any surplus from category A loans will be offset against Category B loans. Developers who fail to pay their category A payments will still be bankrupted by NAMA."

    Seems sensible to me and I suspect someone like Ivan Yates may well get a similar deal....
    What's sensible about about using taxpayers money to spare a group of well connected people from the full consequences of their often reckless gambling?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #26
    Broke Broke is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    490

    Quote Originally Posted by Touché View Post
    It's panning out as most of us expected, we have to hope the opposition overhaul the FF nama beast when they get their turn
    Long live the Galway tent,the only reason NAMA was set up.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #27
    Catalpa Catalpa is offline
    Catalpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    28,715

    Quote Originally Posted by olamp View Post
    Mortgage holders in negative equity had better start their own campaign for debt forgiveness NOW!!!!!Don`t just sit back and get screwed ---DO SOMETHING ,FOR GODDSAKES!
    Sorry - this should not apply to the little people

    - what kind of example would be set if they were allowed to get away with that kind of carry on?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #28
    johnfás johnfás is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    9,171

    Absolutely ridiculous notion. One might argue (I don't) that there is no point pushing them into bankruptcy. However, that does not mean that debt forgiveness need necessarily happen. You can have a situation where once all personal assets are sold you pursue in a less rigorous manner and then if they begin to make large amounts of money once more you an pursue them again.

    Personally I favour to put them into bankruptcy option for multiple reason: 1) it is the same manner as everybody else is treated 2) it lances the boil once and for all 3) these developers are simply speculators and not even inherently important to their own business. I want to keep employing their portfolio managers, their architects and their engineers as they are important to the carrying through of the various developments in question. The incessant gambler at the top is not important in the slightest.

    Debt forgiveness should not be on the table for these guys.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #29
    Fish Fish is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,479

    Seeing as the other thread I opened was closed I will re post this here.

    Granted it is discussing the same issue corelli however the link provided, warranted a discussion in it's own right IMO!

    In today's tribune, have read for yourself.

    Nama admits it may waive developers' debt if they have 'worked in good faith'

    O'h well just another in a long line of broken promises from Lenny and Co I suppose. Utterly predictable and indeed predicted around here by those in opposition to NAMA, who were of course labelled as numpties during it's inception.

    How is good faith measured again? Would it be similar to the calculation for long term economic value? Is it dependent on whether one is either a card carrying FF supporter or donor?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #30
    hammer hammer is offline
    hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    45,622

    Every week the rules seem to be changed.

    Moral hazard - Stop all loan & mortgage payments to the bank. Say you are in divorce proceeding with the wife Will start to repay when eventually sorted out No loan repayments to the Bank. TROUBLE FOR THE EXCHEQUER.

    Bank bailout
    Developer bailout
    Failed politicians bailout
    Failed regulators bailout
    Ordinary people - go sing
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment