Poll: Will this Dáil see a full term? - Support for FF falls 15% (Joe Behan Resigns from the Party)

It does give a right of redemption to the borrower - it is for that reason that banks are unwilling to take possession or sell as to do so they have to achieve the best price possible, in keeping with the mortgagor's right of redemption, which is a risk they are generally unwilling to take. A legal mortgage over unregistered land does however give an automatic right to possession and indeed sale provided that the conditions of the Convenyancing Act 1881 are complied with .

Well said JF.


Good post about IABS zakalwe - any links for background reading?

the IASB are the international accounting standards board.
international accounting standards are manditory for all irish financial institutions and plcs under EC regulations.

they are the lovely crowd who have brought to the world other lovely things such as:

- defined contribution pensions rather than defined benefit pensions
- the huge volatility in financial institutions earnings (foreseen by every accounting expert since 2003)
- unbelievably difficult hedge accounting, which resulted in every financial institution exiting hedges and leaving themselves more exposed to interest rate and FX risk amongst others. hedges usually use derivatives but are to mitigate risk, not for speculating purposes. hedges are actually good but exotic speculative derivatives are bad. an analogy would be: making it extremely difficult for ford fiesta drivers to pass test and allowed to drive thereby leaving the roads free for lambourghini drivers who don't have to pass a test.

on the plus side, they were going to change the Profit & Loss account to the catchy and easy to understand "Net Movement in Shareholders Equity Account" but decided to row back and only change it to "Profit or Loss account". you might wonder about the difference, and whether all the cost of changing the name will be worth it but remember the accountant nerds in IASB can never be too pedantic!

johnfás wrote:

It does give a right of redemption to the borrower - it is for that reason that banks are unwilling to take possession or sell as to do so they have to achieve the best price possible, in keeping with the mortgagor's right of redemption, which is a risk they are generally unwilling to take. A legal mortgage over unregistered land does however give an automatic right to possession and indeed sale provided that the conditions of the Convenyancing Act 1881 are complied with .

does that mean that its harder to repossess culchie property than dublin property?

zakalwe wrote:

johnfás wrote:

It does give a right of redemption to the borrower - it is for that reason that banks are unwilling to take possession or sell as to do so they have to achieve the best price possible, in keeping with the mortgagor's right of redemption, which is a risk they are generally unwilling to take. A legal mortgage over unregistered land does however give an automatic right to possession and indeed sale provided that the conditions of the Convenyancing Act 1881 are complied with .

does that mean that its harder to repossess culchie property than dublin property?

Yup. You've to get a court order on most culchie properties whereas you don't to get most Dublin properties - particularly for older homes. The general rule of thumb is that properties in Dublin are of the 'unregistered' variety and under these types of property the banks have a great deal more power than the more modern system of land registration. That said, in relation to some of the newer developments they fall under the newer system because it was cheaper for developers in conveyancing fees to register them if it was a large development.

We are getting a bit off topic - if we can stick to the Government's housing measures and effects on the viability of the government, all the better.

Indeed. Support people who can't pay their mortgages, not developers trying to flog their unsold stock. That is what I say.

eoinmn wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Look at Iceland. eoinmn, this is not anything like the 1980s; it is much more violent. The economy is much bigger, but so is the shockwave.

I agree with all you said, CF. But what do you see as the solution?
Will the HomeChoice scheme help or will it just buy us a few months?

I haven't gone through the Budget Schemes properly yet. I'll have a go tonight. On first sight, they look insubstantial compared with the scale of the problem.

It appears highly probable that the indebtedness of the banks relating to property lendings is a problem for us all and it is a matter of time before one or more bank fails. Internationally the measures being put in place don't appear likely to hold up more than short term.

I'm not a banker, but I feel that government should be ready to take banks that fail into public ownership and that their books should be opened. I presume if we take over bankrupt banks we become liable for their losses, so the feasibility of doing this is unknown.

Any reckless trading should be pursued and penalties paid, in so far as recuperable, by those responsible. The collateral held by the banks is mainly property. If that came into public ownership. rather than a firesale which would get very poor value, government should take over and manage the property through the local authorities - the priority should be to keep people in their homes, to rent to people who can't maintain mortgages (maybe bring them into the shared ownership scheme) and to house people who need housing in suitable empty properties.

Why not use the shared ownership scheme to help people who can't afford their mortgages stay in their homes? In due course they would quite likely buy back the public share.

BreakingNews.ie

Independent TD Finian McGrath has withdrawn his support from government.
He made the announcement at a press conference in Dublin this evening.

Deputy McGrath said he was taking the decision because of the government's decision to means test over-seventies for a medical card.
He said he was doing so with regret, but feels he has no alternative.

How much does it take for the government to fall? If the Greens and the PD's (you know what I mean) pull out, is that not it? It sounds very plausible all of a sudden.

You need 83 to have a bare majority. According to Wikipedia Fianna Fáil have 76 sitting TD's but I would want to double check that as there are several issues which might lead it to be inaccurate - (i) Seamus Brennan's death (ii) Beverly Cooper-Flynn rejoining (iii) Joe Behan resigning. I'll double check the figures and come back. If the 76 is correct you can maintain a majority with Fianna Fáil, the PDs and the Greens. Add to that Jackie Healy Ray will never vote with anyone but Fianna Fáil.

Right, on my calculation the Government consists of the following:

Fianna Fáil - 76
Green Party - 6
Progressive Democrats - 2
Supporting Independents - 3
(Gregory, Lowry, Healy Ray)

Total - 87

On the opposite side we have

Fine Gael - 51
Labour - 20
Sinn Féin - 4
Independents - 2 (Although is Behan really an opposition independent)
(McGrath, Behan)

Total - 77

-----

For the Government to fall it would need to shed 6 supporting TDs on a vote of confidence in the Taoiseach. Therefore, the Greens do technically now have it in their power to pull down the Government - which is exactly what Bertie Ahern tried to avoid by such a grand coalition. That said, I am unconvinced that Behan would actually vote to bring down the Government.

Also, the above is my rough calculations and as I said sources like Wiki are unclear as there have been some complications with Fianna Fáil.

Where are you counting Behan?
How is Tony Gregory I wonder ? He campaigned against Lisbon.

cactus flower wrote:

Where are you counting Behan?
How is Tony Gregory I wonder ? He campaigned against Lisbon.

In my calculations above the two opposition independents are Behan and McGrath. I am not convinced that they would actually vote down the Government though.

Wonder how Fianna Fáil will treat the Dublin South Byelection - they could do with the extra seat and if Brennan's son were to run he might have a strong chance. That said it would be a huge gamble and more likely than not they would hand another seat to the opposition.

FF had 78 after election.

Add Beverly Flynn (elected as Indo)
Subtract Seamus Brennan
Subtract Joe Behan

So they have 77 now.

The Dail is 165 seats at the moment, so 82 + CC required to stay in

77 + 6(green) = 83

I thought Gregory stayed out ???? So I thought they only had Jackie + Lowry + McGrath.

I really think they could lose one of these votes....

EVM - did you also substract the Ceann Comhairle? If you didn't then they have 76 sitting and supporting TDs. The Ceann Comhairle only comes into play where there is a tie. Which is of course possible in the current situation with only 164 voting TDs.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

FF had 78 after election.

Add Beverly Flynn (elected as Indo)
Subtract Seamus Brennan
Subtract Joe Behan

So they have 77 now.

The Dail is 165 seats at the moment, so 82 + CC required to stay in

77 + 6(green) = 83

I thought Gregory stayed out ???? So I thought they only had Jackie + Lowry + McGrath.

I really think they could lose one of these votes....

Finian McGrath has announced he's not backing the Government any more. Just over the medical cards

Jackie Healy Ray says that he won't vote for the medical card change, but I don't believe he would bring the Government down for one moment. Nor Lowry.

Gregory does not support the government you're right EVM. I'm surprised Lowry hasn't fled already.

Lowry knows he is probably getting a better deal than he would from another Government so why bother? Not like he has a whole lot of credibility anyway.

Lowry had a falling out with FG, did he not? Or rather the other way around.

cactus flower wrote:

Lowry had a falling out with FG, did he not? Or rather the other way around.

Exactly. He got booted out of the party by John Bruton because Ben Dunne paid for an extension to his house.

cactus flower wrote:

Lowry had a falling out with FG, did he not? Or rather the other way around.

Wasn't he fecked out for corruption - something to do with his house ?

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Lowry had a falling out with FG, did he not? Or rather the other way around.

Wasn't he fecked out for corruption - something to do with his house ?

A VAT fiddle of the type commonly used at the time, as far as I remember.

Anyone going on Wednesday?