Independent vs Irish Times

Sometimes it’s interesting to see how two different papers cover the same story.

Here is the Irish Times talking about how crowds failed to materialise at a property sale in Swords.

And then the Indo follows stating that nearly all of the houses sold.

Granted, they were filed on two different days and the Times couldn’t have known the level of sales, but they did point out the crowds didn’t arrive, the rational deduction being that there was ‘no rush’ to buy the homes. The Indo pointed out that 45 of 53 properties sold, that’s almost 80% of what was available in a day or two.

So is there a rush on for these homes? Yes, because 80% of anything with a price tag of a quarter of a million Euro never sells that quick when we don’t have a supply side issue – something Conor Skehan of the Housing Agency is lording over the mere mortals Read More

Just who is getting the mortgages?

Caroline Madden wrote an article in today’s Irish Times ‘Just who is getting the mortgages?‘. It is a question that begs answers, at first it seemed to me like asking ‘Who is John Galt?’ (Rand readers will understand). The stories we hear constantly is that banks are hoarding credit, they will not extend credit to particular groups and when they do the underwriting is so strict that even credit-worthy applications are being turned down.

This article features our feelings on the matter, we believe that some of the banking statistics being thrown around make fore ‘good copy’ (good PR) and very little else, as we are not seeing applications turn from approvals in principle into closed loans, and in many cases, approvals are coming in far below what the applicant is actually looking for.

One element of this is natural, after a credit fuelled boom you …

Read More

Why banks support bangers

There have been headlines about the way that AIB underwrote certain loans to Liam Carroll, judge Peter Kelly is of the belief that the security may not be correct because AIB essentially gave him the money in early 2009 on the back of a personal guarantee and some other minor security.

Why would a bank do this? Especially as they were curtailing lending to every other sector of the market? Especially when they were being saved by the taxpayer and had just been bailed out? This isn’t to defend the banks, but to explain the reason why they acted in such a counter intuitive way, any right thinking person would be correct in assuming that they should have been trying to rein in developers, but that is the reverse of what they did, rather they extended more credit to the developer.

Explanation for this is simple, Carroll had brought AIB too far down the rabbit hole for them to turn around and pull the plug, a bank gets to a certain point with a …

Read More