Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Rock-n-Roll

What Does It Take To Topple The House Of Cards?

Recommended Posts

answer

some fecking orange bankers!

and a judge who doesnt belive the green shoots sh1t!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaki.../breaking63.htm

Carroll fails to get court protection for Zoe firms

MARY CAROLAN

Property developer Liam Carroll has failed to get court protection for companies in his Zoe group.

A High Court judge today refused to continue court protection to the firms in the building group after rejecting as “fanciful†and “lacking in reality†survival proposals heavily dependent on a greatly improved property market which suggested the companies could turn a €1 billion deficit into a €300 million surplus within three years.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly granted, “with misgivingsâ€, a stay on his refusal pending an appeal to the Supeme Court on Tuesday.

He also expressed the view the proposed survival scheme for the six companies (on whose fate many of the other 51 companies in the Zoe group depend) “seems envisaged to help shareholders whose investment has proved to be unsucessfulâ€. That was not the objective for which the examinership legislation was envisaged, he said.

All of the group’s major banker creditors and the Revenue adopted a neutral stance towards the examinership application but ACC Bank, which prompted the protection petition by demanding repayment of €136 million loans earlier this month, signalled after today’s judgment it may yet move against the companies if the judge’s decision stands.

AIB and Bank of Scotland Ireland are the largest lenders with 40 and 23.8 per cent of the €1.1 billion borrowings respectively. The companies produced the three year survival plan after meeting with the banks last December and securing agreement of all except ACC.

The petition for protection was brought by Vantive Holdings which, with Jersey-registered Morston Investments Ltd, is the parent companies of around 50 companies known as Zoe Developments. It was moved after four companies - Villeer Developments, Peytor Developments, Caragh Enterprises Ltd and Parlez International Ltd - were presented with demands from ACC for the repayment of loans.

Refusing protection, Mr Justice Kelly dismissed as “lacking in reality†the views of an independent accountant Fergal McGrath (whom the judge noted is a member of the group’s auditors LHM Casey McGrath ) the companies could achieve “a remarkable turn around†within three years from a deficit of more than €1.2 billion to making a profit of some €300 million.

He noted the proposed survival scheme involved proposals to enhance site values through planning permission, the building out and development of existing sites and the aggresive marketing of completed residential commercial and retail units. It was claimed this would generate “a significant surplus†which would then be used to fund future development.

“Given current market conditions and with little or no prospect for improvement in the future on the basis of all the current economic indicators, this degree of optimism on the part of the independent accountant borders, if not actually trespasses, on the fanciful,†the judge said.

“What market is there likely to be over the next three years for the sale of sites even with planning permission and the sale of residential commercial and retail units?†he asked. “The commercial market, particularly in Dublin, where much of the companies’ properties are, is grossly oversubscribed and the residential sector is hardly moving at all.â€

It was notable, since the companies’ business plan was initiated last December and the banks had paid off its ordinary trading creditors “except, notably, the Revenueâ€, and with an “aggressive marketing and competitive policyâ€, only 39 residential units had been sold notwithstanding the enormity of the developments carried out.

The plan involved “extraordinary†forbearance by the group’s banker creditors in agreeing to a two year moratorium on interest payments and effectively refraining from calling in massive loans. This forbearance was “remarkably absent†when the banks were dealing with smaller borrowers, he remarked.

“In truth the banks can do little else but forbear because if they take action to recover the monies due to them by these companies, they will bring about a collapse of the house of cards that is the petitioner, the related companies and indeed the wider group that is associated with them.â€

The banks had therefore stood back and not only took no steps to recover the monies but some banks actually advanced more sums to pay off the companies unsecured creditors.

“It is sometimes said that when small or modest borrowers encounter difficulties in repaying their loans, then such borrowers have a problem. For those with larger borrowings, it is the banks who have a problem,†he said. “If ever a case demonstrated the accuracy of that proposition, it is this one.â€

He had the “gravest reservations†about the projections on which the independent accountant relied given the extraordinary collapse of the property market and little of no indication of a revival in its fortunes.

The projections were based on discussions with the companies management and out of date valuation reports by two firms - CBRE and Hooke & McDonald, who could not be considered fully independent having worked for the group in the past.

The propsed survival scheme was also most unusual as it would not require any investment in the companies or a write down of debts. One or both such elements figure in practically all schemes relating to companies in examinership, the judge noted noted.

No investment was required because the banks would continue to provide funds towards development of the lands and no write down was envisaged because the banks were the only creditors, he noted.

In all the circumstances, he was not satisfied the companies had a reasonable prospect of survival. Even if so satisfied, he would exercise his discretion to refuse protection because there was “something artificial†about what was proposed.

The only creditors involved are the banks and they would be able in any event to take steps to reclaim their debts and deal with the property involved, he noted. They would be expected to maximimse its value as they saw fit.

The judge also noted the number of direct employees was about 100. Another figure of 650 mentioned was largely made up of subcontractors who would be required if the partly completed developments were to be finished, he said.

Earlier, the judge noted the six companies were part of a “Byzantine corporate structure†and their three directors were Mr Carroll, David Torpey and John Pope who respectively held a total of 203, 166 and 62 company directorships.

for those who dont know mr carrol is the dublin slave box king

and unless the supreme court decide differant

will be the daddy of all busts in the emerald isle

rock the feck on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What will this mean for NAMA?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/to...se-1848862.html

THE Government faces a major controversy over how much it plans to pay for 'toxic' assets as the future of the country's biggest developer hangs in the balance.

The High Court yesterday refused to appoint an examiner to protect the crumbling empire of property tycoon Liam Carroll.

If the Supreme Court upholds that decision on Tuesday, and a liquidator is appointed, the sale of his assets at knock-down prices would set a new market value for risky property loans.

A firesale of Mr Carroll's property empire could completely undermine the valuation formula being drawn up by the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA), whose job is to take risky loans from the banks.

And that would leave the Government facing taxpayers' anger and questions over why it is paying massively over the odds for banks' risky property development and commercial loans.

But if the Government pays too little for the loans, the banks' losses would leave gaping holes in their coffers -- potentially forcing the taxpayer to pump further billions into the ailing financial institutions.

A senior Dublin-based stockbroker said the collapse of a developer would not have a real impact on the day-to-day workings of NAMA.

"But it would have an impact on the perceptions of valuations," he said.

This would make it very difficult politically to justify paying prices for loans that reflect hopes of asset increases as the economy improves.

The court drama came just 24 hours after Finance Minister Brian Lenihan published draft laws underpinning NAMA, which will take over €90bn-worth of loans from banks and building societies.

Last night, ACC bank threatened to immediately appoint a receiver to four of Mr Carroll's companies, but the threat was averted -- at the last minute -- when the judge agreed, "with misgivings", to postpone his refusal to continue protection, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Other banks which had been supporting Mr Carroll were also on stand-by to send in the receivers if ACC was successful in starting the winding-up.

Yesterday, Mr Justice Peter Kelly launched a scathing attack on Mr Carroll, whose Zoe Group is €1.2bn in debt.

Fanciful

He rejected as "fanciful" and "lacking in reality" survival proposals heavily dependent on a greatly improved property market, which suggested the €1.2bn deficit could be turned into a €300m surplus within three years.

That was not the objective for which examinership legislation was envisaged, he said.

All of the group's major banker creditors and the Revenue adopted a neutral stance towards the examinership application but ACC Bank, which prompted the protection petition by demanding repayment of €136m loans earlier this month, signalled after yesterday's judgment it might yet move against the companies if the judge's decision stands.

AIB and Bank of Scotland Ireland are the largest lenders, with 40pc and 23.8pc of €1.1bn in borrowings respectively.

The Department of Finance said it had no comment to make on the case because banks were entitled to go to the courts to uphold their rights.

- Dearbhail McDonald, Joe Brennan and Tim Healy

rock on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.rte.ie/news/thisweek/

VERY interesting this week about NAMA, Carroll and ACC the Dutch bank. Not up on listen again but should be later today. Some excellent contributions basically saying that rather than NAMAs 7 year housing market cycle projection the real truth is 18-20 year minimum and that tax payer cannot be guaranteed a return on their 'investment', despite what the Government might say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.rte.ie/news/thisweek/

VERY interesting this week about NAMA, Carroll and ACC the Dutch bank. Not up on listen again but should be later today. Some excellent contributions basically saying that rather than NAMAs 7 year housing market cycle projection the real truth is 18-20 year minimum and that tax payer cannot be guaranteed a return on their 'investment', despite what the Government might say.

same sentiment here!

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnis...ns-1849248.html

First, it's necessary to use this space to defend the banks. Over the past week, much of the criticism thrown at senior bankers was unmerited, and it would be unfair not to acknowledge that. It's a dirty job, defending those greedy bastards, but someone's got to do it.

I can promise that normal service will be resumed shortly (within a few paragraphs, to be honest -- at which point we'll try to understand why we're now up to our chins in the rising tide of faeces that is Nama).

The bankers got a bad rap because one bank, Permanent TSB ("The Bank That Likes to Say Feck Off"), increased interest rates. Other banks acknowledged they have similar intentions. Screams of horror issued from the media and politicians. Oh, dear -- it seems the banks are refusing to operate as social utilities. As though they believe that nothing is more important than their profits. Imagine that!

"The public won't wear the fact that we're bailing out the banks and that the banks in turn are really screwing mortgage-holders and businesspeople," said Fianna Fail former minister John McGuinness, the little dote. Enda Kenny called on Brian Lenihan to intervene.

Frankly, I'm a bit shocked at people like Kenny and McGuinness. Can they really be so naive as to imagine that these banks have some function as social utilities? How quaint.

Criticising bankers for operating totally and exclusively in the interests of their own profit is like slagging the Terminator for blowing people's heads off. The premise of the Terminator is that he's a machine designed, built and programmed to kill, and for no other purpose. Senior bankers are programmed to relentlessly squeeze money out of the rest of us, by any means necessary.

Private banks have no social function (beyond perhaps a bit of sponsorship, for PR purposes). No doubt there are individual bankers who would take pride in having a social function -- good for them. And when promotion time comes around they're sent to the end of the queue. Those who thrive and reap the gigantic bonuses are the greediest, the most single-minded, the most ruthless.

Private bank directors are not just encouraged to put shareholder dividends and bank profits before everything else, they're legally obliged to do so.

Of course, in a sane world, banks would be public utilities. But Kenny and McGuinness and a lot of other people give the impression that they don't believe in the overriding rule of capital and the free markets. It's currently a populist position.

Last autumn, as it became obvious the banks were insolvent, there was a brief moment when things might have been different. The private banks might have been left to the tender mercies of the free markets. We might have seen the emergence of a true public utility bank, designed to service the rest of us. Here's Soapbox last November:

"If I was one of the Brians, I'd buy a premises in each county, and 26 safes and 26 laptops and I'd open my own State bank. Call it the Provisional AIB. Or the Continuity Bank of Ireland. Get credit moving. Why bother giving money to the banks in the hope they'll lend it on to businesses that need it? Cut out the middle-man. We know the banks are failed financial entities, run incompetently by overpaid gobshites."

Others suggested a State bank could be set up through the Post Office structure. Good idea.

But, said the bishops of the free market, international investors would be aghast, they'd refuse to lend us money. I doubt it. Not if the Government explained thusly: "The banks, as free market entities, must retain their independence. Meanwhile, by setting up a State-backed bank, we will provide a safe haven for depositor and investor funds, and also the credit facility necessary for economic survival and development."

Investors want a safe, profitable place for their money. Which is why they abandoned our crappy, insolvent banks. A sovereign bank offered the best value, greatest efficiency. It made sense.

A State bank, however, was simply beyond the understanding of the likes of Cowen and Lenihan and their advisers. It was like telling Catholic bishops there was a warehouse of condoms around the corner, which would protect us from a blizzard of sexual diseases. It might be the sensible thing to do, but their religious sensibilities wouldn't allow them even consider it.

I watched, on Vincent Browne's TV3 show, a senior economist break into a fit of giggles when he was asked about setting up a State bank. He looked just like a 1950s bishop being asked to consider condoms.

Besides, the idea of a State bank has a smell of socialism off it. Better to sink into national bankruptcy than even consider any such radical ideas.

Similarly, when the "bad bank" idea flourished, sensible economists urged temporary nationalisation of the main banks. It wasn't about appropriating banks, it was about temporarily neutralising the bankers who always act in their own interests, whatever the effect on the common good.

Some of the most right-wing economists on the planet endorsed the idea of temporary nationalisation -- it was a capitalist solution to the problem of zombie bankers screwing up any rational attempt at unravelling the banking chaos.

Again, to the likes of Cowen and Lenihan, nationalisation had a socialistic smell to it.

They really are desperately incompetent. We're being Namafied by a Government that is ideologically bankrupt, intellectually crippled and operating from an electoral mandate that's way past its sell-by date.

Nama (An Bord Bailout) is taking €90bn in construction loans from the banks. Happily, we have the timely Liam Carroll debacle in the High Court to indicate the market value of such loans. From the Carroll case, academic economist Brian Lucey calculates that the €90bn in loans are now worth about €40bn. And Brian Lenihan will probably pay about €60bn or €70bn for them -- a gift of up to €30bn of our money to the bankers.

Why? Because the banks want money. And investors won't give it to them. And Mr Cowen and Mr Lenihan believe they can saddle us with that debt, blind us with jargon, tell us there's no alternative, and we'll meekly accept. And the banks might even use some of that money to provide credit to business -- but they're not obliged to, and they probably won't.

The politicians say they believe that the loans they're buying, at a price of maybe €70bn, will "in time" be worth more than their current €40bn market value. As the property collapse ends (which, they suggest, will be any day now), property prices will rise again. And, eventually -- in maybe 20 years' time -- those bad loans may be worth €70bn. So, we'll get our money back.

Insanity.

Some of us think that property prices can go down a lot more. It's more likely that property prices are still heading down towards a sustainable level, and won't rise again for a long, long time. Which is fine with those of us who wouldn't at all welcome another property bubble.

But the banks and the developers and their buddies in Government hope and pray for that bubble.

And Mr Cowen and Mr Lenihan are betting about €30bn of our money on such a new bubble. It would be bad enough if this zombie Government was merely passing bad legislation that could be reversed by a later Government. What they're doing is stitching us into an economic strait-jacket for a couple of generations.

And that's why your grandkids will be sending you Christmas greetings by internet video link from New Zealand.

- Gene Kerrigan

rock on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/financ...4251928895.html

Nama will use its own method to value the loans and underlying assets. This will be based on what the department calls the economic value of the assets, as against the market value which would be achieved if the underlying properties were put on the market today.

Imo they are making this up as they go along :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/financ...4251928895.html

Imo they are making this up as they go along :ph34r:

Everybody knows that an 'open-market-value' of all this land, if there was a fire sale, is a big fat 0. There are not buyers for all but very few peces of land now.

It was never in the plans at the first place to price the assets to Market, this simply cant be done. To reduce the eventual 'right-down' to the Tax Payer it is best to work there way through the assets and build them out. This is what they mean by looking at a medium term value on the assets. Its the only way that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without trying to be contentious - but is there not a huge over supply of flats and houses in the ROI just now anyway. Ghost estates and about 200,000 without buyers I think I read on the Pin. What would be the sense of building more when they can't get this lot shifted? Is it not better to let the banks go bust and sell those flats houses off at affordable levels and see what happens.

Spot on Doccy.

NAMA is the last roll of the dice imo and will fail as it is more smoke and mirrors , once it does there are two choices left :

1. Get the IMF in now

2. Get the IMF in a little later

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
same sentiment here!

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnis...ns-1849248.html

First, it's necessary to use this space to defend the banks. Over the past week, much of the criticism thrown at senior bankers was unmerited, and it would be unfair not to acknowledge that. It's a dirty job, defending those greedy bastards, but someone's got to do it.

I can promise that normal service will be resumed shortly (within a few paragraphs, to be honest -- at which point we'll try to understand why we're now up to our chins in the rising tide of faeces that is Nama).

The bankers got a bad rap because one bank, Permanent TSB ("The Bank That Likes to Say Feck Off"), increased interest rates. Other banks acknowledged they have similar intentions. Screams of horror issued from the media and politicians. Oh, dear -- it seems the banks are refusing to operate as social utilities. As though they believe that nothing is more important than their profits. Imagine that!

"The public won't wear the fact that we're bailing out the banks and that the banks in turn are really screwing mortgage-holders and businesspeople," said Fianna Fail former minister John McGuinness, the little dote. Enda Kenny called on Brian Lenihan to intervene.

Frankly, I'm a bit shocked at people like Kenny and McGuinness. Can they really be so naive as to imagine that these banks have some function as social utilities? How quaint.

Criticising bankers for operating totally and exclusively in the interests of their own profit is like slagging the Terminator for blowing people's heads off. The premise of the Terminator is that he's a machine designed, built and programmed to kill, and for no other purpose. Senior bankers are programmed to relentlessly squeeze money out of the rest of us, by any means necessary.

Private banks have no social function (beyond perhaps a bit of sponsorship, for PR purposes). No doubt there are individual bankers who would take pride in having a social function -- good for them. And when promotion time comes around they're sent to the end of the queue. Those who thrive and reap the gigantic bonuses are the greediest, the most single-minded, the most ruthless.

Private bank directors are not just encouraged to put shareholder dividends and bank profits before everything else, they're legally obliged to do so.

Of course, in a sane world, banks would be public utilities. But Kenny and McGuinness and a lot of other people give the impression that they don't believe in the overriding rule of capital and the free markets. It's currently a populist position.

Last autumn, as it became obvious the banks were insolvent, there was a brief moment when things might have been different. The private banks might have been left to the tender mercies of the free markets. We might have seen the emergence of a true public utility bank, designed to service the rest of us. Here's Soapbox last November:

"If I was one of the Brians, I'd buy a premises in each county, and 26 safes and 26 laptops and I'd open my own State bank. Call it the Provisional AIB. Or the Continuity Bank of Ireland. Get credit moving. Why bother giving money to the banks in the hope they'll lend it on to businesses that need it? Cut out the middle-man. We know the banks are failed financial entities, run incompetently by overpaid gobshites."

Others suggested a State bank could be set up through the Post Office structure. Good idea.

But, said the bishops of the free market, international investors would be aghast, they'd refuse to lend us money. I doubt it. Not if the Government explained thusly: "The banks, as free market entities, must retain their independence. Meanwhile, by setting up a State-backed bank, we will provide a safe haven for depositor and investor funds, and also the credit facility necessary for economic survival and development."

Investors want a safe, profitable place for their money. Which is why they abandoned our crappy, insolvent banks. A sovereign bank offered the best value, greatest efficiency. It made sense.

A State bank, however, was simply beyond the understanding of the likes of Cowen and Lenihan and their advisers. It was like telling Catholic bishops there was a warehouse of condoms around the corner, which would protect us from a blizzard of sexual diseases. It might be the sensible thing to do, but their religious sensibilities wouldn't allow them even consider it.

I watched, on Vincent Browne's TV3 show, a senior economist break into a fit of giggles when he was asked about setting up a State bank. He looked just like a 1950s bishop being asked to consider condoms.

Besides, the idea of a State bank has a smell of socialism off it. Better to sink into national bankruptcy than even consider any such radical ideas.

Similarly, when the "bad bank" idea flourished, sensible economists urged temporary nationalisation of the main banks. It wasn't about appropriating banks, it was about temporarily neutralising the bankers who always act in their own interests, whatever the effect on the common good.

Some of the most right-wing economists on the planet endorsed the idea of temporary nationalisation -- it was a capitalist solution to the problem of zombie bankers screwing up any rational attempt at unravelling the banking chaos.

Again, to the likes of Cowen and Lenihan, nationalisation had a socialistic smell to it.

They really are desperately incompetent. We're being Namafied by a Government that is ideologically bankrupt, intellectually crippled and operating from an electoral mandate that's way past its sell-by date.

Nama (An Bord Bailout) is taking €90bn in construction loans from the banks. Happily, we have the timely Liam Carroll debacle in the High Court to indicate the market value of such loans. From the Carroll case, academic economist Brian Lucey calculates that the €90bn in loans are now worth about €40bn. And Brian Lenihan will probably pay about €60bn or €70bn for them -- a gift of up to €30bn of our money to the bankers.

Why? Because the banks want money. And investors won't give it to them. And Mr Cowen and Mr Lenihan believe they can saddle us with that debt, blind us with jargon, tell us there's no alternative, and we'll meekly accept. And the banks might even use some of that money to provide credit to business -- but they're not obliged to, and they probably won't.

The politicians say they believe that the loans they're buying, at a price of maybe €70bn, will "in time" be worth more than their current €40bn market value. As the property collapse ends (which, they suggest, will be any day now), property prices will rise again. And, eventually -- in maybe 20 years' time -- those bad loans may be worth €70bn. So, we'll get our money back.

Insanity.

Some of us think that property prices can go down a lot more. It's more likely that property prices are still heading down towards a sustainable level, and won't rise again for a long, long time. Which is fine with those of us who wouldn't at all welcome another property bubble.

But the banks and the developers and their buddies in Government hope and pray for that bubble.

And Mr Cowen and Mr Lenihan are betting about €30bn of our money on such a new bubble. It would be bad enough if this zombie Government was merely passing bad legislation that could be reversed by a later Government. What they're doing is stitching us into an economic strait-jacket for a couple of generations.

And that's why your grandkids will be sending you Christmas greetings by internet video link from New Zealand.

- Gene Kerrigan

rock on!

Love it. Great article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without trying to be contentious - but is there not a huge over supply of flats and houses in the ROI just now anyway. Ghost estates and about 200,000 without buyers I think I read on the Pin. What would be the sense of building more when they can't get this lot shifted? Is it not better to let the banks go bust and sell those flats houses off at affordable levels and see what happens.

I think the whole idea is to prevent the banks from going bust.

Yes there is no point in building something that wont sell and many of these assets will have to be mothballed for years or social housing built on them.

What you are suggesting would implode the ROI. You may claim that that has happened already but it hasn't. The country still operates and this plan is to thy and allow that to continue.

Don't keep thinking about individual houses. This will be a top down approach. They will firstly look at the largest debts on the banks balance sheet and work on removing them off the banks balance sheet. This is about cleaning out the banks from its large exposure to property related debt and allowing the bank to continue on, borrowing from the international banks and trading again. NAMA will then look at the assets and see what best to do with the assets from the point of view of the Irish Tax payer. Having a fire sale is not in the interest of the Taxpayers invested monies. NAMA will take performing assets as well as non-performing inorder to clear out the bank of these debts.

They may well in the future get down to actual 'partly built developments' and will look at clearing stock to reduce that debt. I imagine it will turn the sitting stock into 'working social housing' before giving it away in a fire sale, but who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the whole idea is to prevent the banks from going bust.

Yes there is no point in building something that wont sell and many of these assets will have to be mothballed for years or social housing built on them.

What you are suggesting would implode the ROI. You may claim that that has happened already but it hasn't. The country still operates and this plan is to thy and allow that to continue.

Don't keep thinking about individual houses. This will be a top down approach. They will firstly look at the largest debts on the banks balance sheet and work on removing them off the banks balance sheet. This is about cleaning out the banks from its large exposure to property related debt and allowing the bank to continue on, borrowing from the international banks and trading again. NAMA will then look at the assets and see what best to do with the assets from the point of view of the Irish Tax payer. Having a fire sale is not in the interest of the Taxpayers invested monies. NAMA will take performing assets as well as non-performing inorder to clear out the bank of these debts.

They may well in the future get down to actual 'partly built developments' and will look at clearing stock to reduce that debt. I imagine it will turn the sitting stock into 'working social housing' before giving it away in a fire sale, but who knows.

I honestly don't see the issue with letting at least some of these banks go broke. After all, if I was a free market advocate (which I'm not), that's exactly what should happen to them - you take the rough with the smooth. Of course collapsing banks do raise the potential for financial turmoil but it seems to me that you could set up a new bank or two with the 70 billion that they plan to spend of toxic assets. This just smacks of double standards here - a free market is pushed as the ideal but, when it inevitably fails due to the involvement of illogical and irrational human beings, all the ideals are convenient set aside to save the hides of the fools that caused the problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly don't see the issue with letting at least some of these banks go broke. After all, if I was a free market advocate (which I'm not), that's exactly what should happen to them - you take the rough with the smooth. Of course collapsing banks do raise the potential for financial turmoil but it seems to me that you could set up a new bank or two with the 70 billion that they plan to spend of toxic assets. This just smacks of double standards here - a free market is pushed as the ideal but, when it inevitably fails due to the involvement of illogical and irrational human beings, all the ideals are convenient set aside to save the hides of the fools that caused the problems.

yeah let them fail but save depositers money up to a certain limit.

the problem however is ireland/uk have allowed banks to get so big that they are actually too big to fail.

the tories need to break them up and tighter regulation. if this doesnt happen we will of learned nothing and saddled my generation (im 26) to paying off the £1 trillion debt

i was in mullingar a couple of weeks ago and a boy whos as propertycrash obsessed as me was showing me blocks of flats/housung/shopping developments all over the place sitting empty. because the place is commutable to dublin thanks to motorway thats opened in last few years the building round there has been crazy.

its the same in belfast i see developments that just sit empty every time i pass- that development with the 3 three blue towers next to motorway off stockmans lane, malone square etc. so much must be held by irish investors/banks now in my opinion

Edited by getdoon_weebobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah let them fail but save depositers money up to a certain limit.

the problem however is ireland/uk have allowed banks to get so big that they are actually too big to fail.

the tories need to break them up and tighter regulation. if this doesnt happen we will of learned nothing and saddled my generation (im 26) to paying off the �1 trillion debt

i was in mullingar a couple of weeks ago and a boy whos as propertycrash obsessed as me was showing me blocks of flats/housung/shopping developments all over the place sitting empty. because the place is commutable to dublin thanks to motorway thats opened in last few years the building round there has been crazy.

its the same in belfast i see developments that just sit empty every time i pass- that development with the 3 three blue towers next to motorway off stockmans lane, malone square etc. so much must be held by irish investors/banks now in my opinion

someone else with the same thoughts

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/financ...4251962271.html

BELFAST BRIEFING: What has happened to the plan to transform an old government building into a posh aparthotel?

A GROWING number of ambitious projects in Belfast are coming under threat due to the downturn. The latest appears to be the £20 million (€23.48 million) regeneration of Armagh House, a disused former government building close to the city centre.

Two years ago, the North’s Minister for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie, unveiled details of a multimillion-pound project to transform Armagh House into an upmarket aparthotel that would cater for visitors who wanted the flexibility of an apartment with the advantages of a hotel.

It was envisaged that 30 apartments would be developed on the site, including two penthouse suites.

According to the Minister, the project would bring “significant new jobs†to the area, with an estimated 71 full-time and 20 part-time jobs.

The Department for Social Development awarded the contract for the project to Tullymore House, a Northern Ireland company owned by well-known local hoteliers Nicholas and Paul Hill.

The Ballymena-based Hill brothers own the luxury Galgorm Resort and Spa and until last year owned Belfast boutique hotel Ten Square.

The Hill brothers were selected as the “preferred developer†of Armagh House only after other bidders had been ruled out by the department’s Belfast regeneration office.

At the time, Ritchie said her department’s selection process had been extensive.

“I believe the proposal presented by Nicholas and Paul Hill offers an opportunity to create something new for Belfast which will bring quality development, vitality and vibrancy to this area and long-term benefit to the local community through the creation of new employment opportunities,†she said.

Paul Hill was equally optimistic about the project two years ago.

Speaking at the launch of the scheme, he said it represented a “long-term commitment†by his firm. He intended “to sympathetically restore and extend†the old building to produce a “unique luxury developmentâ€.

Work was expected to begin on transforming Armagh House from an empty shell into a luxury respite last autumn. But the building, despite its prime location, remains in its same sorry state.

So what has happened to the ambitious plans for the site?

Firstly, despite all appearances to the contrary two years ago, everything was not quite signed and sealed on the Armagh House project between the Department for Social Development and Tullymore House.

In spite of the extensive tender process and the cost to the public purse of selecting a developer, not everything was agreed with Tullymore House.

According to Tullymore House finance director Karen Dundee, the department released details pertaining to the bid process, “with no formal contract signedâ€.

Secondly, the local landscape has changed dramatically since the Hill brothers won the bid to develop Armagh House.

They no longer operate a boutique hotel in Belfast following the sale of Ten Square to Northern Ireland businessman John Miskelly, so Armagh House does not “complement†the Hills’ interests as it previously did.

Thirdly, there is the not insignificant factor of the downturn in the local economy to consider.

Although Tullymore House maintains that there “is still an interest in the regeneration projectâ€, it has hinted that it is unlikely to proceed with its original plans for the scheme unless it is “at a price reflective of the current market valueâ€.

The Department for Social Development is keen to point out that it is still in contact with representatives of Tullymore House and has held discussions relating to the terms of a contract for the regeneration of Armagh House.

A spokesman for the department added: “In the present economic climate, these discussions tend to take some time. Retendering is not under consideration at this time.â€

But if the current state of play is anything to go by, the £20 million regeneration of Armagh House, along with the economic benefits it could deliver for Belfast, is looking increasingly uncertain.

Meanwhile, on a more positive note, 70 jobs that were under threat at Co Armagh plastics manufacturer Reflex Mouldings, which went into administration in June, have been saved following the sale of the business.

Administrator PricewaterhouseCoopers has confirmed that Lisburn-based FHS Group acquired Reflex Mouldings and its assets for an undisclosed sum.

This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times

the other day was forced kicking and screaming into portrush (chav-ville by the sea)

dozens of houses , b+bs etc empty or knocked are waiting to be developed into 500k apartments!

what a money pit!

what will it look like in a few years?

Apocalyse now!

without the palm trees

rock on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah let them fail but save depositers money up to a certain limit.

the problem however is ireland/uk have allowed banks to get so big that they are actually too big to fail.

the tories need to break them up and tighter regulation. if this doesnt happen we will of learned nothing and saddled my generation (im 26) to paying off the �1 trillion debt

i was in mullingar a couple of weeks ago and a boy whos as propertycrash obsessed as me was showing me blocks of flats/housung/shopping developments all over the place sitting empty. because the place is commutable to dublin thanks to motorway thats opened in last few years the building round there has been crazy.

its the same in belfast i see developments that just sit empty every time i pass- that development with the 3 three blue towers next to motorway off stockmans lane, malone square etc. so much must be held by irish investors/banks now in my opinion

If you let one bank go under there is the very real risk that they will take the others down as they borrow so much from each outer. As for the depositors savings, thats part of what they give Carrol and co. I don't think they are giving it back.

The tax payer would have to pick up the losses and this is exactlywhat the government is trying to prevent. The version you are describing is the one Iceland had to run with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everybody knows that an 'open-market-value' of all this land, if there was a fire sale, is a big fat 0. There are not buyers for all but very few peces of land now.

cannot agree vi

there are always buyers

the price might not be attractive for the banks or the government

but there will be buyers

do you not know one of MDs golden rules

"you will never buy a house on the malone rd for a bag of carrots!"

rock on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cannot agree vi

there are always buyers

the price might not be attractive for the banks or the government

but there will be buyers

do you not know one of MDs golden rules

"you will never buy a house on the malone rd for a bag of carrots!"

rock on!

People keep thinking NAMA is about houses. Its not its about £50 to £100m loan for development land, which may not have obtained planning. There are no buyers for this, there won't be for a long time. That doesn't however mean that the Irish or the UK tax payer has to take a total write down on this. There is another way. The land can be worked, planing achieved and perhaps in 4 or 5 years the land may be worth half that, there will be still be no buyers but the banks can partner and build out the properties and sell them at market price, whatever that may be and on behalf of the taxpayer(who is carrying the can at this stage) recoup as much debt as is possible. That is the only logical solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you let one bank go under there is the very real risk that they will take the others down as they borrow so much from each outer. As for the depositors savings, thats part of what they give Carrol and co. I don't think they are giving it back.

The tax payer would have to pick up the losses and this is exactlywhat the government is trying to prevent. The version you are describing is the one Iceland had to run with.

i was making the point they should be allowed to fail but its hard because they are far too big.

when your failure risks bringing down the country you are based in then you are too big and they became too interlinked with these big boys caroll/quinn etc

there are small banks failing daily in the USA without causing too many major problems.

ireland and the uk should offload all this property and deal with it as the usa has done with its property - firesales. the recovery in property will take a decade or two for certain if the irish government sits on it all waiting for some magic recovery

ref iceland is starting to slowly recover having faced up to its problems. ireland and UK to a bigger extent is prolonging the pain

Edited by getdoon_weebobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without trying to be contentious - but is there not a huge over supply of flats and houses in the ROI just now anyway. Ghost estates and about 200,000 without buyers I think I read on the Pin. What would be the sense of building more when they can't get this lot shifted? Is it not better to let the banks go bust and sell those flats houses off at affordable levels and see what happens.

The problem is that that is common sense and common sense does not mix with politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you let one bank go under there is the very real risk that they will take the others down as they borrow so much from each outer. As for the depositors savings, thats part of what they give Carrol and co. I don't think they are giving it back.

The tax payer would have to pick up the losses and this is exactlywhat the government is trying to prevent. The version you are describing is the one Iceland had to run with.

I don't disagree that there is the potential for large scale turmoil associated with the fall of a bank but isn't this the way it's supposed to work? The term "too big to fail" is a phallacy in my opinion. No-one is too big to fail, remember the empires of the world have always fallen no matter what size they reach. The thing here is to support these failures until such point as alternatives can be made available - prop them up until such time that they can be properly demolished. The current policy of unreservedly supporting these organisations is simply rewarding failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry BelfastVI but what about the empties? On the Pin they are saying there's enough pent up supply for many years yet.

In some areas this will take decades to clear. The houses should never have been zoned, never mind built. I have said before one of the things that saved us here is our glorious planning system. BMAP and the other area plans will be 10 years late by the time they come and it takes about 3 years for land to get planning. All this slowed down the system, thank God. We also didn't zone big swathes of land around every little village, as they did in the south. So yes there is supply in areas for perhaps 15 to 20 years. So I have no idea what NAMA is going to do with either partly developed or undeveloped land in those areas. Amy completed houses will be sold to market or handed over to social housing landlords. Selling the land is not an option. The losses to the taxpayer would be too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't disagree that there is the potential for large scale turmoil associated with the fall of a bank but isn't this the way it's supposed to work? The term "too big to fail" is a phallacy in my opinion. No-one is too big to fail, remember the empires of the world have always fallen no matter what size they reach. The thing here is to support these failures until such point as alternatives can be made available - prop them up until such time that they can be properly demolished. The current policy of unreservedly supporting these organisations is simply rewarding failure.

You have hit the nail on the head(highlighted in Bold). This is exactly what NAMA is designed to do. Can it do it, probably not but it will attempt.

The banks take a hit here and the developers are wiped out but the losses to the government will be deferred and hopefully reduced. How is this a bad thing? This is not supporting failure. It is accepting it and stepping in to sort it out.

Edited by BelfastVI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have hit the nail on the head(highlighted in Bold). This is exactly what NAMA is designed to do. Can it do it, probably not but it will attempt.

The banks take a hit here and the developers are wiped out but the losses to the government will be deferred and hopefully reduced. How is this a bad thing? This is not supporting failure. It is accepting it and stepping in to sort it out.

My quibble here is with the on-going support for the banks. Whats not in dispute is that the banks made the loans to the developers that have since fallen into the toxic category. No argument can be made about the banks not being able to foresee this occurence as, if anything, there was no-one better placed to do this (it was in their own best interests to have been more cautious). So, the issue with NAMA is that it will take the assets from the banks, alledgedly allowing them to return to "normal" operation. That's not temporarily propping them up while alternatives are put in place, that's simply having the tax payer foot the bill for their mistake and hoping against the current reality that the true cost (when it's finally realised) will be lower than it currently looks like it will be. At best this is selecting an option for a (very) protracted period of discomfort over the option for a short term period of extreme discomfort. Given the choice I know which of these options I'd go for. I'd rather get it over and done with up front so that the work on rebuilding (forgive the pun) can start properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't disagree that there is the potential for large scale turmoil associated with the fall of a bank but isn't this the way it's supposed to work? The term "too big to fail" is a phallacy in my opinion. No-one is too big to fail, remember the empires of the world have always fallen no matter what size they reach. The thing here is to support these failures until such point as alternatives can be made available - prop them up until such time that they can be properly demolished. The current policy of unreservedly supporting these organisations is simply rewarding failure.

Woodzer-we are all sickened by the activities of the banks and the whole ponzi scheme housing crisis funded by them.However letting a bank go is not an option because you would get:

1.total panic and people withdrawing their money

2.possible failure of other banks

3.chaos and anarchy as whole system failed

Not in any of our interests.It could still happen but probably not as likely as 12 months ago.Everyone here should be aware that this is much bigger than a housing crisis / overpriced issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.