QuoteExcept as someone pointed out before in relation to O'Keefe or one of his colleagues, they say what the rest of FF thinks.Originally Posted by John83
Holy crap. That's a remarkable load of garbage even by that lunatic's standards!
Difficult to even know where to start...
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
Except as someone pointed out before in relation to O'Keefe or one of his colleagues, they say what the rest of FF thinks.
I wonder how many of those that voted for the various measures around the banking sector actually have shares in them? Clear conflict of interest if they did so, not that that seems in this country.
Edit: Stolen from politics.ie:
O'Keefe is a one man advertisement for why we need the ability to recall politicians.Deputy O'Keefe's substantial portfolio of shares includes, according to the register of members interests, investments in a large number of financial concerns, specifically Permanent TSB, A.I.B., Bank of Ireland, Lloyds TSB, Standard Life Plc, Experian, FBD Insurance, Royal Sun Alliance Plc, AIB European Commercial Property Fund Bond & Barrington Capital.
Register of Members Interests of Dáil Éireann 1 January 2007 - 31 December 2007 - Tithe an Oireachtais
Last edited by Mr A; 21/04/2010 at 7:49 PM.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
This country is one large conflict of interest!
The worst bit about the article is the way the comments aren't even challenged. Don't have to go into detailed analysis, but surely a two-line comment highlighting what's wrong with it is surely doable? Media shouldn't exist to make it seem like idiots actually have a point.
We shouldn't be surprised - light touch regulation was and is FF policy since 1997. It's the rest of the Government benches that are contradicting their views, as borne out by how they did set regulation policy (no matter how much they try and hang it on the scapegoat). Sure as recently as this time last year Lenihan was standing with the UK in opposing the such strict regulation as the EU was proposing.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Is anyone surprised? TD gets a nudge from a lobbyist/party whip to ask a question, question asked, big fudge, and then we're all in the same mess again. What surprised me most this week has been the fact that this is supposed to be a good time to buy houses - despite the property market still overvalued and in need of deflation. Banks and Builders and those who hold lots of land rule.
David McWilliams doesn't agree.
I don't think think houses will come down to the levels David mentions, and I don't think you can say that it's a bad time to buy a house across the board (I'm buying one myself at the moment), but there is still an awful lot of overpriced property out there. The affordable houses flooding onto the market will definitely bring the market down further though.
Agreed, the government and their buddies won't let it bottom out, so we'll be stuck with overpriced junk for years to come. I wouldn't want to buy at the moment because of lots of reasons, however if you're getting a good discount on a property then why not.
It's worth noting too that David ignores the quality factor, building standards have improved substantially in the last 20 years.
I'm taking full advantage by buying from a liquidator. No builder's warranty, but sure what's that worth these days anyway...
You're right buying from that outlet, though I don't know if building standards have risen in any way - in fact in some cases it's even worse than back in the 60's and 70's. It can come down to the poor level of workmanship on some houses to wafer thin walls and shallow foundations. Also, and this is something that I still get cheesed off about, all the wonderful hard working east europeans who landed in to work on sites didn't help. I still remember a development in Blanchardstown where the contractor proudly told me - "We've got fellas with degrees and even a doctor working there, jaysus we've one fella who has a degree in nuclear physics working as a chippy." That degrees cost a little more to buy than bog roll in eastern europe (a Masters in English rubberstamped by a real university will set you back $100 at B.I. Lenin metro station) has nothing to do with being a capable worker on a building site. Which leads me back to what I mentioned, I've been to lots of new builds with my sister when she was looking for a place and in all but 2 in the Dublin and Dublin area (including one major spot in Lucan) the workmanship wasn't up to snuff.
Older buildings do send to be a bit more solidly built, though that often covered for some shoddy worksmanship - wiring in particular can be in a state fit to make an electrician cry (with joy, as he tells the owner that he'll have to rip it all out and redo it all). Insulation was patchy too. Builders have always cut corners.
You can't spell failure without FAI
And always will. But building regs are much stronger now. There'll always be shoddy estates, and houses, but generally speaking houses are safer and more energy-efficient now.
Did anyone see the programme on Ghost Estates last night on RTE1?
It's mind numbing to think Leitrim does not need any new houses to be built for about nine years. Sure there are many more examples.
It's all very well blaming the planning Authorities, Government , banks etc but how on earth did builders think there was demand for houses in these god for saken farmer fields 100 miles from Dublin? I'm proabaly going to offend people now but I went o school with guys of "average" intellegence in the 90s who ten years later were driving X5s with speed boats behind them and 5 year on are back on the carrer path forecast at parent teacher meetings in the 90s......
A Good friend at the Bank last monday. Owns a three bed semi in a Midland town since 05. Probably in about 20% negitive equity. He and his missus want to trade up and out and build on a site (family plot but would need the pay off some family members). Bank Told him to go away and sell his own before they would give a 80% mortgage or if he wished he they bank would give 50% of the new build. This would amount to about 100k for a 200 k. BOI reckon they are granting 100 morgages a day, or 25,000 a year. Who are they Kidding?
Lucy thinks there is more to fall and prices to return to 2000 levels. 3 bed semis were £IR100k in 2000 in Athlone.
Property trap.
Last edited by Fr Damo; 10/05/2010 at 9:24 AM.
Apparently the 100 mortgages a day number is bull, the numbers relate to preapprovals.
Source?
The tax breaks made them viable. There were tax breaks for building, and substantial tax breaks for investors (i.e. none owner occupiers). As I understand it, even if they never rented the houses, the tax they could write off made them worthwhile. At the same time it acted as a disincentive to be owner occupiers. It was Government policy that created the "market" and ultimately lead to the ghost estates. To think that Cowen et al got their knickers in a twist over recent accusations in the dail!
It'll be interesting to watch the next few shows. A couple of things already bugged me even from last night, so god knows how I'll feel when the politicians get involved in the programmes - the "we are were we are, don't look back" is bull. The incumbents are the one's that created this mess. There should be no loss of focus on that this side of an election lest the many thick electorate forget. Sure, we need solutions, but those that lead us in must be punished at the ballot box for their incompetence (given they deny it was deliberate). There'll be the crap about no one seeing this coming as well from FF apologists - remember the complaints about the Futureshock programme that Curran did that FF lept on. His job was apparently under threat because of it - remember Bertie wondering why the naysayers didn't just go an committ suicide. They'll also try and hang the financial regulator - who it turns out Cowen only deemed necessary to meet twice in four years when he was Finance Minister. http://www.independent.ie/national-n...s-2173983.html
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Unfortunately I heard it on the radio during a debate several weeks ago. I guess "Newstalk" is the best I can do.
I doubted it as well, but I would've thought its more along the lines of, "you applied for (e.g.) €300k, we'll approve you for €200k". i.e. its a mortgage approval, but in reality feck all use to the applicant.Unfortunately I heard it on the radio during a debate several weeks ago. I guess "Newstalk" is the best I can do.
That said, I do feel there's an element of damned if you do, damned if you don't, in that people howled that the banks were lending too much and thats what got us into this mess (which is completely correct), now the banks are supposedly inhibiting the country getting back on its feet by coming over all sensible about lending money....
This country needs to get over its property ownership at all costs mentality IMO.
The Guy I mentioned has decided to withdraw his savings from the Bank he was with and merge them with the wifes savings (they are recently married) in an otherbank. In doing so, they leave Mortgage A with Bank A and no savings.
Normally a bank view mortgages as an asset and a deposit as a liability but not any more! Bank B are more receptive to their application and they are on a second meeting.
Yes banks over shot on the way up but aren't helping themselves on the way down and you'd have to question their wisdom, they didn't do a good job managing the boom after all so why have faith in this more conservitive approach? & Why isn't salary a consideration (or to the point, why are they only considering loan to value?) i.e if a couple have combined income of 100k gross, it seems mad they can borrow only 200k for a 300 k house!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks