Register to Comment
Page 30 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2028293031 LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 305
Like Tree260Likes
  1. #291
    greagh greagh is offline

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    228

    Quote Originally Posted by Taxi Driver View Post
    The fund doesn't own the properties; the fund owns the loans for which the properties were used as collateral.

    The terms of the loan require that the loan be repaid. If the borrower, i.e. the landlord, was in a position to do so they could pay off the loan with any funds. It does not appear that the landlord has such funds so is selling the properties in order to pay the loan.

    The loan would exist and require repayment whether the fund was in the picture or not.

    [None of which is to say we shouldn't have great protection for tenants.]
    The fund would have bought this loan at a steep discount ,their objective is to maximise return. Initially they will negotiate with the owner for the property to be sold with vacant possession and then a top up to an agreed minimum value paid by the owner.Failing this receivers would be brought in ,tenants evicted ,property sold and judgement sought for payment in full from the owner.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #292
    Killerbank Killerbank is offline
    Killerbank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    818

    Quote Originally Posted by Taxi Driver View Post
    Who are you blaming?
    Ultimately this chap who spoke warmly on RTE tv last night of the ecological benefit brought about by vultures. (Very witty don't ye seee)
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #293
    Killerbank Killerbank is offline
    Killerbank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    818

    Quote Originally Posted by odie1kanobe View Post
    OH an I did and what is clear the investigators have a poor knowledge of Ltd Company taxation.
    Rents received by a Limited company have always been treated differently that rents to an individual.
    That is not the issue with Vulture Funds availing of Section 110: just have a look at this:
    A loophole that allowed vulture funds to slash their tax bills is set to be shut
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #294
    odie1kanobe odie1kanobe is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    29,891

    Quote Originally Posted by Killerbank View Post
    That is not the issue with Vulture Funds availing of Section 110: just have a look at this:
    A loophole that allowed vulture funds to slash their tax bills is set to be shut
    The idea that they tax loss is €1 billion is to stupid for words.

    That would mean a Taxable profit of €8 billion or €90k per property.......................
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #295
    an innocent abroad an innocent abroad is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    23,585
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #296
    Taxi Driver Taxi Driver is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,292

    Quote Originally Posted by greagh View Post
    The fund would have bought this loan at a steep discount ,their objective is to maximise return. Initially they will negotiate with the owner for the property to be sold with vacant possession and then a top up to an agreed minimum value paid by the owner.Failing this receivers would be brought in ,tenants evicted ,property sold and judgement sought for payment in full from the owner.
    What would be different if the loan was still held by the original lender?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #297
    LISTOWEL MAN LISTOWEL MAN is offline
    LISTOWEL MAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    3,114

    the GAA sold out to SKY

    what an F you to RTE
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #298
    odie1kanobe odie1kanobe is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    29,891

    Quote Originally Posted by Taxi Driver View Post
    What would be different if the loan was still held by the original lender?
    Owned by taxpayer, borrower still refusing to do anything and not keeping to any payment schedule, ultimately taxpayer trying to get money back with people sitting on hands hoping for a debt write off. Politicians interfering with banks trying to get money back. Selling to Vulture funds means they pay cash immediately, they responsible for getting money back, if they fail to do so it is their loss.

    The view and claim is why not let people buy their own mortgage at a discount.......... these are the people who DIDN'T keep up to date or try and renegotiate and now time to reward them witha debt write off.

    Nobody is telling how these people would get the cash, no lender would touch them as already proven not willing to keep to a legal agreement and if they have the cash already why are they not srvicing the existing loan.

    Its why anybody that thinks yippe lets use the new bankruptcy laws to walk away from debt, not surprisingly they can expect to be offered loans if at all at 20% and people will shy away from giving them credit. Once you have crossed the rubicon of going bankrupt people do it again and again as evidenced by our nearest neighbour.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #299
    clearmurk clearmurk is offline
    clearmurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,073

    Quote Originally Posted by odie1kanobe View Post
    Owned by taxpayer, borrower still refusing to do anything and not keeping to any payment schedule, ultimately taxpayer trying to get money back with people sitting on hands hoping for a debt write off. Politicians interfering with banks trying to get money back. Selling to Vulture funds means they pay cash immediately, they responsible for getting money back, if they fail to do so it is their loss.

    The view and claim is why not let people buy their own mortgage at a discount.......... these are the people who DIDN'T keep up to date or try and renegotiate and now time to reward them witha debt write off.

    Nobody is telling how these people would get the cash, no lender would touch them as already proven not willing to keep to a legal agreement and if they have the cash already why are they not srvicing the existing loan.

    Its why anybody that thinks yippe lets use the new bankruptcy laws to walk away from debt, not surprisingly they can expect to be offered loans if at all at 20% and people will shy away from giving them credit. Once you have crossed the rubicon of going bankrupt people do it again and again as evidenced by our nearest neighbour.
    If these are such clear-cut cases, then why are our great banks not pursing the same approach? Don't they want to make all this money too?

    Because they know that by selling to a vulture they circumvent the protections that were implicit in the loan agreement they sold to their customer, and from which they expected to benefit greatly.

    It's a one sided abdication from their contract for their sole benefit.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #300
    odie1kanobe odie1kanobe is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    29,891

    Quote Originally Posted by clearmurk View Post
    If these are such clear-cut cases, then why are our great banks not pursing the same approach? Don't they want to make all this money too?

    Because they know that by selling to a vulture they circumvent the protections that were implicit in the loan agreement they sold to their customer, and from which they expected to benefit greatly.

    It's a one sided abdication from their contract for their sole benefit.
    Nope because political pressure kept banks from what they would be doing in reposesing propertys for people refusing to engage or make agreeements on repayments. The stated desire was for Debt write off pushed by politicians and media so nobody did anything assumming they would get what they wanted.

    Had it happened the mortgages industry in Ireland would have ceased to exist as why lend when borrower just waits for a Govt inspired write off.

    Goverment would have spent hundreds of millions and tied up court with challenge after dubious challenge.
    Many people would demand they be allowed stay as it banks fault that they borrowed money and had a great house and now if they threw them out their poor kids would suffer.

    Now you have couple of organisations who will deal direct and politicians wanting special favours has no impact.

    Ultimately if Govt had been forced to go down debt forgiveness route or selling mortgages to people at a huge discount when they never serviced then anyway it would have cost even more, the 88% of people who were paying their mortages would say we want some of this as well.

    Nobody seems to want to answer why people who didn't pay their mortgages or engage with lenders should get a deal where as those who did get nothing.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 30 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2028293031 LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment