Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
_SUNDANCE

What Went Wrong With South Of Ireland Economy-Bbc Documentary

Recommended Posts

Any see this programme last night.

A developer with 130 million of personal debt and 2 billion of company debt talking as if the money he owes is monopoly money. He had absolutely no remorse. Sure, everyone was speculating on prices rising was his answer." A lot of people owe more than me", he went on, as it was revealed he is presentlyl in a job on $60,000 a year.

The kind of money this fella owns is probably directly responsible for thousands of people losing their jobs and budgets being cut for hispitals and schools. This is how these sort of financial wrong doings should be judged and sentences handed out proportional to the affect a persons debt has on others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me most is how our politicians (from both sides) are doing their utmost to prop the entire pyramid scheme up. Watching the DUP and Sinn Féin scurrying down to Dublin, hand-in-hand and seeking assurances that Dublin wouldn't flood the Northern market with NAMA property was disgusting. Orange and green idealism go out the window when someone tries to remove the trough from the snouts of these people. These guys would sell your granny down the river to keep their own nests feathered.

The worst thing is that we fully deserve what we're getting. We are the ones who elect slimy former estate agents and terrorists to public office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any see this programme last night.

A developer with 130 million of personal debt and 2 billion of company debt talking as if the money he owes is monopoly money. He had absolutely no remorse. Sure, everyone was speculating on prices rising was his answer." A lot of people owe more than me", he went on, as it was revealed he is presentlyl in a job on $60,000 a year.

The kind of money this fella owns is probably directly responsible for thousands of people losing their jobs and budgets being cut for hispitals and schools. This is how these sort of financial wrong doings should be judged and sentences handed out proportional to the affect a persons debt has on others.

Panorama - see iplayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00z0fyd/Panorama_How_to_Blow_a_Fortune/

Also highlights the 40yr mortgage! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What struck me was the honesty displayed by the people they interviewed. There seemed to be no delusion unlike here in England. They seem to have accepted it was all ridiculous and that they made some crazy decisions, at least at the personal level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon kellys book 'breakfast with Anglo' doesn't exactly offer much remorse either.he seems to think he should be lauded for being the first developer to "hold their hands up" and say they cant repay their loans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jail sentences of over 10 years would not be out of place for the people who owe these debts running into hundreds of millions. These are not victimless actions. The price of these debts are being paid by others in lost jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any see this programme last night.

A developer with 130 million of personal debt and 2 billion of company debt talking as if the money he owes is monopoly money. He had absolutely no remorse. Sure, everyone was speculating on prices rising was his answer." A lot of people owe more than me", he went on, as it was revealed he is presentlyl in a job on $60,000 a year.

The kind of money this fella owns is probably directly responsible for thousands of people losing their jobs and budgets being cut for hispitals and schools. This is how these sort of financial wrong doings should be judged and sentences handed out proportional to the affect a persons debt has on others.

What people are missing is who do you punish. this guy for taking the money or the guy that give it out to him. The guy you mention above is likely to lose everything, if he borrowed personally. The banker who give it out is probably still getting his bonus and maybe even working for NAMA now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me most is how our politicians (from both sides) are doing their utmost to prop the entire pyramid scheme up. Watching the DUP and Sinn Féin scurrying down to Dublin, hand-in-hand and seeking assurances that Dublin wouldn't flood the Northern market with NAMA property was disgusting. Orange and green idealism go out the window when someone tries to remove the trough from the snouts of these people. These guys would sell your granny down the river to keep their own nests feathered.

The worst thing is that we fully deserve what we're getting. We are the ones who elect slimy former estate agents and terrorists to public office.

When you look at these things you (and me) have to try and look at it from both sides.

Many people, justifiably want houses to come down in price to be affordable and unlock the working for a mortgage cycle. If that is achieved it is only a cycle and like every other time will revolve again (never as extreme in our lifetime). However there are at least 500,000 home owners, the majority of which have no mortgage and perhaps don't care. The majority of the remainder have equally justifiable reasons for not wanting any institution, particularly a 'foreign one' to start a fire sale of houses. Now, apart from batches of buy to lets, I don't see the problem arising, but that's another story.

You refer to the trough from the snouts. I can only guess what you are implying and sometimes have to laugh. If this were the case I believe the industry would have a good case for a refund, again another story.

All politicians really care about is keeping their job. That involves keeping their voters happy. For a long time we have realised that there were no votes in new houses and politicians were more often objectors. I once invited someone, who is now a current minister to assist with an application, which he gratefully did. However, months later I learned he had also signed a strong letter of objection for the very same scheme. Alot of the voters they have to keep happy are home owners, who are concerned, unduly I believe, about this NAMA beast. So the Lads go down to Dublin to sort it all out.

When Marty and Sammy arrived down to NAMA they were asked how much the NI gov was going to assist with NAMA. It was all show and no show. NAMA will pay no attention to them.

After prices have fallen by almost 50% and land by 80% they haven't really done much of a job at propping anything up. In fact I can't think of one thing they have done to help at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What struck me was the honesty displayed by the people they interviewed. There seemed to be no delusion unlike here in England. They seem to have accepted it was all ridiculous and that they made some crazy decisions, at least at the personal level.

There is a massive difference between both RoI and NI with the UK. Massive difference.

We all know the crash amounts have been different but we need to go back and look at the lead up to the crash- the boom.

In the three years leading up to the 88/90 crash the UK house prices increased by 60%. In the 3 years leading up to the 2007 crash the UK prices rose by only 30%. Not per year but in total.

In the three years proceeding the NI crash in 2007 the prices here rose by over 120%. This is twice the growth of the 1990 boom and four times the 2007 UK boom. In the last 6 months alone the NI market increased at a rate of 36% pa. More than the entire 3 years leading up to the UK boom.

So yes I can understand why developers etc in the UK didn't see a boom generating. The land didn't really increase higher than the house price rate. IN NI whilst houses doubled, and more in a short period of time the land increased five fold.

You can also look at the housing supply.

In the RoI they were building 80,000 houses per year for a pop of 4m. In the UK, where there is 15 times the population they were just building about 4 times the houses 2000,000 to 250,000 per year (well below what was required).

So I can see why there wasn't a sense of overheating in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person put on the dole as a consequence of the actions of others will still be on the dole if tough action was taken aginst those most responsible. But thats not the point.

The injustice of this all is that at the very least those responsible should be standing behind them in the dole queue and in a lot of other cases they should be in jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British and Irish governments are preaching about democracy in the middle east and sticking up for the protests. That would be noble except for the double standards.

Gadaffi could rightly say the the western countries need to sort out the excesses of capitalism before they start telling others how to govern.

Two of the biggest culprits in the banking crisis ran two of the biggest banks in ireland and britain and both got off scott free.

The man who ran RBS got a few windows broken in his plush Edinburgh home and he had an armed guard.

There should have been demonstrations on the streets here the way there were in Egypt. But you can be sure the governments in the west would not be backing the protestors in the same way they are in the middle east because of their own self interest and the interests of the wealthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What people are missing is who do you punish.

I think this is an old argument, and we have discussed it many times on here. My conclusion is that it was the Gov'ts fault for allowing deregulation, the businesses are just following the rules that have been set to increase profits in the shortest term possible. I think our politicians are cut under the English ones in terms of economic knowledge, but they are all corrupt. Power corrupts and that is the single most thing that needs to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After prices have fallen by almost 50% and land by 80% they haven't really done much of a job at propping anything up. In fact I can't think of one thing they have done to help at all.

The purpose of state support in the property sector isn't to support capital values - it's to support people. Look at young Simon Kelly on the telly yesterday. If this was the United States, he would have been declared bankrupt and lost every possession he had to his name. Thanks to the government though, he's doing much better off than what he should be. Here, we have local authorities supporting rents over over 40% of the entire country. There's thousands of developers and landlords who would be throwing the keys back at the banks if it wasn't for the NIHE. If you knew the truth about what happened behind closed political doors, you would be in open revolt tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, we have local authorities supporting rents over over 40% of the entire country. There's thousands of developers and landlords who would be throwing the keys back at the banks if it wasn't for the NIHE.

I have heard this argument before and don't get it.

The government believes it should house the people. There is no point in us debating that issue.

To do this they need housing. The HE was set up but stopped building houses a long time ago and sold off alot of its own stock. They now employ 36 separate housing associations to build stock, in the most innificent manner you could imagine. They cannot build near enough and through inefficiency produce less house for the £ than normal. There is a massive shortfall and a reported 40,000 people on the housing list.

The HE goes to the private sector and pays the going rent. I agree if they didn't need to do that they wouldn't turn to the private sector and there wouldn't therefore be the current demand for rental property and rental prices would fall. But there is no point debating that as they have insufficient stock of their own and will never be able to build the stock via their current parish system. Therefore they have to turn to the private sector and pay the market rate. When they needed (or were told) to expand the public sector during the 90's and 00's they had to offer sal similar to that in the private sector to attract staff.

If the HE withdraws its tenants from the private sector the jingle post will fly. But that's not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard this argument before and don't get it.

The government believes it should house the people. There is no point in us debating that issue.

To do this they need housing. The HE was set up but stopped building houses a long time ago and sold off alot of its own stock. They now employ 36 separate housing associations to build stock, in the most innificent manner you could imagine. They cannot build near enough and through inefficiency produce less house for the £ than normal. There is a massive shortfall and a reported 40,000 people on the housing list.

The HE goes to the private sector and pays the going rent. I agree if they didn't need to do that they wouldn't turn to the private sector and there wouldn't therefore be the current demand for rental property and rental prices would fall. But there is no point debating that as they have insufficient stock of their own and will never be able to build the stock via their current parish system. Therefore they have to turn to the private sector and pay the market rate. When they needed (or were told) to expand the public sector during the 90's and 00's they had to offer sal similar to that in the private sector to attract staff.

If the HE withdraws its tenants from the private sector the jingle post will fly. But that's not possible.

they could cut the payment

just like across the water

rock on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard this argument before and don't get it.

The government believes it should house the people. There is no point in us debating that issue.

To do this they need housing. The HE was set up but stopped building houses a long time ago and sold off alot of its own stock. They now employ 36 separate housing associations to build stock, in the most innificent manner you could imagine. They cannot build near enough and through inefficiency produce less house for the £ than normal. There is a massive shortfall and a reported 40,000 people on the housing list.

The HE goes to the private sector and pays the going rent. I agree if they didn't need to do that they wouldn't turn to the private sector and there wouldn't therefore be the current demand for rental property and rental prices would fall. But there is no point debating that as they have insufficient stock of their own and will never be able to build the stock via their current parish system. Therefore they have to turn to the private sector and pay the market rate. When they needed (or were told) to expand the public sector during the 90's and 00's they had to offer sal similar to that in the private sector to attract staff.

If the HE withdraws its tenants from the private sector the jingle post will fly. But that's not possible.

I always found it amazing that the policy of a Labour Govt would be to reduce the local authority housing stock in favour of the private rental sector. Basically putting the money into the hands of landlords...

Until you realise how many of the politicians are landlords themselves!

Govt should widthdraw from the priavte rental sector and let the rental market feel some pain and when the jingle post happens then the Govt can buy up the properties at a base level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard this argument before and don't get it.

The government believes it should house the people. There is no point in us debating that issue.

To do this they need housing. The HE was set up but stopped building houses a long time ago and sold off alot of its own stock. They now employ 36 separate housing associations to build stock, in the most innificent manner you could imagine. They cannot build near enough and through inefficiency produce less house for the £ than normal. There is a massive shortfall and a reported 40,000 people on the housing list.

The HE goes to the private sector and pays the going rent. I agree if they didn't need to do that they wouldn't turn to the private sector and there wouldn't therefore be the current demand for rental property and rental prices would fall. But there is no point debating that as they have insufficient stock of their own and will never be able to build the stock via their current parish system. Therefore they have to turn to the private sector and pay the market rate. When they needed (or were told) to expand the public sector during the 90's and 00's they had to offer sal similar to that in the private sector to attract staff.

If the HE withdraws its tenants from the private sector the jingle post will fly. But that's not possible.

They don't pay the "going rent" they set it through HB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard this argument before and don't get it.

The government believes it should house the people. There is no point in us debating that issue.

To do this they need housing. The HE was set up but stopped building houses a long time ago and sold off alot of its own stock. They now employ 36 separate housing associations to build stock, in the most innificent manner you could imagine. They cannot build near enough and through inefficiency produce less house for the £ than normal. There is a massive shortfall and a reported 40,000 people on the housing list.

The HE goes to the private sector and pays the going rent. I agree if they didn't need to do that they wouldn't turn to the private sector and there wouldn't therefore be the current demand for rental property and rental prices would fall. But there is no point debating that as they have insufficient stock of their own and will never be able to build the stock via their current parish system. Therefore they have to turn to the private sector and pay the market rate. When they needed (or were told) to expand the public sector during the 90's and 00's they had to offer sal similar to that in the private sector to attract staff.

If the HE withdraws its tenants from the private sector the jingle post will fly. But that's not possible.

[/quot

This " market value" is the level they choose to pay. Drop the rent - new market value. Simple, possible and inevitable.

Edited by yadayada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they could cut the payment

just like across the water

rock on!

Across the water, (I may be wrong on this)I understand they limited the max rent to something like £600 per week (may be wrong on the figure but it was high enough to not be relevant for NI). The reason for this was people moving into £2m pound houses in the high end of London and the Gov was forced to pay the going rent. All a lot of Human rights rubbish. (I usually let myself down at this stage) I agree with this stance and believe the NI HE should pay the going rent up to a max. They should not be renting houses in BT9 or other high end parts of NI. I cant say that in public, buts its my view on that particular issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always found it amazing that the policy of a Labour Govt would be to reduce the local authority housing stock in favour of the private rental sector. Basically putting the money into the hands of landlords...

Until you realise how many of the politicians are landlords themselves!

Govt should widthdraw from the priavte rental sector and let the rental market feel some pain and when the jingle post happens then the Govt can buy up the properties at a base level.

Actually it was the Iron Lady who started the right-to-buy policy that sold off houses at a rate of 5x everyone they were creating.

By all means let the gov withdraw placing its 10's of thousands of tenants from private rented homes. Er' have you any idea where we should put these families over the 20 years or so it takes the state to build replacement stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't pay the "going rent" they set it through HB.

Do they. And how is housing benefit worked out. why is HB higher in most other city's in the UK. Perhaps the rents there are higher.

If a family present themselves as homeless to the HE the HE first looks at its own stock. If nothing is available/suitable(?) they turn to the 37 registered H assoc'. Again if nothing there tickles their fancy they look to the private market. If the private landlord is looking, say £500 it is kind of irrelevant as the HB is calculated on the family unit (number of kids etc) and on rates of the average market price. In many cases this falls short of the market/asking price. In some cases these people manage to make up the shortfall or the landlord, if he cant rent his 2 bed apt to anyone else, takes the offer.

Rents are not linked to house prices. They didn't double when house prices did. They didn't half when house prices did. They are a purer reflection of demand and supply. I agree alot of that demand is coming from people on benefits. In the 60's this was much higher and only reduced with the expansion of HE build during the 70's. There was a rent fix, of sorts then (cant remember the exact phrase).

There is a fine line here. People here argue that the HB props up the average rent price. To an extent yes. If the private tenants all clumped together and all said they were only paying 90% of the rents from now on rents would come down. Similarly with HB. If they reduced there firstly would be turmoil as people are turfed out, particularly of good houses and then a equilibrium would be found.

Two things this is a major market intervention and secondly we cant have families places on the streets.

What I imagine will happen is the old rent freeze, and the stopping of other free handouts ie money for the family to do the garden up or replace the wooden floor. (I have a HB tenant and over the years it is amazing what she has got grants to do to the house. She always gets me to tip in and I know I am being foolish as there is no way she would do it if she didn't get a full grant)

You forget that a decision was made, by the gov that it was cheaper to pay £400 in rent to the private sector than to build their own stock. I can't see that decision being reversed in the near future. Even though land is for nothing they haven't got the money to commence on a massive build program. They have been approaching us to see if we would fund and rent back new stock for them on a 25 year lease. Thats where they are trying to take it. They see a bigger reliance on the private sector going forward. They know they haven't the capital themselves and they also know they are totally inefficient in the way they build them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This " market value" is the level they choose to pay. Drop the rent - new market value. Simple, possible and inevitable.

Discussed most of this above. I think the fact that the HB is unlikely to rise will put a brake on rent rises here as they are such a large block tenant. Has anybody and figures for the % of the rental market that is HB?

In our discussions with them (or the A/C firm they have employed to look at this) They realise that the HB is not sufficient to cover the payback over 25 years on build costs alone. They know its low but said its the market rate and they are looking for a scheme to top up (purely on this PFI type scheme).

You are right of course. There is nothing to stop the Gov decreeing that the HB is to be halved. Or to announce that the GOV will only pay 1/2 price for the electricity it uses or the food it buys for its hospitals or schools. They can do it. It will be fun to watch and heads would role.

There electric may be cut off, people in hospitals may have to go without food for a while and thousands of people may be forced to the streets as the banks (mostly gov backed or owned) gather up thousands of keys and make further right offs. But yes rents would fall.

But I was told we didnt have a problem with rents. I thought they weren't rising anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Across the water, (I may be wrong on this)I understand they limited the max rent to something like £600 per week (may be wrong on the figure but it was high enough to not be relevant for NI). The reason for this was people moving into £2m pound houses in the high end of London and the Gov was forced to pay the going rent. All a lot of Human rights rubbish. (I usually let myself down at this stage) I agree with this stance and believe the NI HE should pay the going rent up to a max. They should not be renting houses in BT9 or other high end parts of NI. I cant say that in public, buts its my view on that particular issue.

Agree, and no bailing out of developers by purchasing overpriced stock, like the curzon flats, for social housing simply because their gamble failed. Disgraceful use of taxpayers money. Plenty of ex NIHE stock on the market at vastly reduced cost.

As for the "going rent" what would that be if the sector wasn't distorted by NIHE HB payments - surely this sets the rate for most of NI, esp. the Shi*eholes.

Edited by Shotoflight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 294 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.