Investors "cannot countenance €16m debt"

[ps200306]

TWO RETIRED women being sued with others for €16.3 million over unpaid loans to develop a property in Dalkey, Co Dublin, relied entirely on the financial advice of a businessman, who seemed to have “walked them” into an agreement which they would never have entered had it been explained, their lawyer has told the Commercial Court…

Mr McDowell said his clients had relied entirely on Mr Hynes for financial advice but at no time could they have countenanced a liability of €16 million and would never have done so had the transaction been explained to them.

irishtimes.com/newspaper/fin … 16293.html

Where’s THEIR NAMA?

[xman]

“Hello there retired clients, it’s your financial advisor Mr Hynes here, good news on that property deal in Dalkey, you made a 20% profit. Who should I make out the cheque for €3.2 million to?”

“I’m sorry Mr Hynes, but we cannot countenance accepting all that money. This possibility was never explained to us. Good day to you sir.”

[ps200306]

*"WARNING: THE VALUE OF YOUR INVESTMENTS MAY GO **DOWN *AS WELL AS UP"

“Your honour, my poor retired clients have excellent peripheral vision for their age but a certain loss of visual acuity in the centre”.

[jcsmith]

I cannot countenance paying €40B debt for Anglo. This possibility was never explained to me.

[shocked]

@ps200306

TWO RETIRED women being sued with others for €16.3 million over unpaid loans to develop a property in Dalkey, Co Dublin, relied entirely on the financial advice of a businessman, who seemed to have “walked them” into an agreement which they would never have entered had it been explained, their lawyer has told the Commercial Court…

Mr McDowell said his clients had relied entirely on Mr Hynes for financial advice but at no time could they have countenanced a liability of €16 million and would never have done so had the transaction been explained to them.

irishtimes.com/newspaper/fin … 16293.html

Where’s THEIR NAMA?

Is the obligation not on the women to understand the contrcts which they were signing?

[Inis_Man]

@shocked

@ps200306

TWO RETIRED women being sued with others for €16.3 million over unpaid loans to develop a property in Dalkey, Co Dublin, relied entirely on the financial advice of a businessman, who seemed to have “walked them” into an agreement which they would never have entered had it been explained, their lawyer has told the Commercial Court…

Mr McDowell said his clients had relied entirely on Mr Hynes for financial advice but at no time could they have countenanced a liability of €16 million and would never have done so had the transaction been explained to them.

irishtimes.com/newspaper/fin … 16293.html

Where’s THEIR NAMA?

Is the obligation not on the women to understand the contrcts which they were signing?

No, the obligation is on the salesman to FULLY explain all the pitfalls to the clients, not hide em all away in baffling small print and terms.
Until recently, Ireland had a society that worked a great deal on trust, where terms and conditions and small print barely existed.
These ladies put full trust in their financial advisor because people from the old school came from a viewpoint where we are all looking out for each other, not trying to shaft each other - where an advisor really is an advisor, knowledgeably weighing up all the pros and cons, instead of being a salesman pushing only the benefits.
In recent years too we’ve seen the proliferation of investment products that even the ‘advisors’ didn’t understand properly, and of course they were far too busy sizing up marks to waste time on learning what it was exactly they were pushing, come on there’s commissions to be earned!!
The two ladies are entirely right to challenge their advisor in the court, and the only proper outcome is they win their claim.

[Puck_may_be_Famous]

@Inis Man

@shocked

@ps200306

irishtimes.com/newspaper/fin … 16293.html

Where’s THEIR NAMA?

Is the obligation not on the women to understand the contrcts which they were signing?

No, the obligation is on the salesman to FULLY explain all the pitfalls to the clients, not hide em all away in baffling small print and terms.
Until recently, Ireland had a society that worked a great deal on trust, where terms and conditions and small print barely existed.
These ladies put full trust in their financial advisor because people from the old school came from a viewpoint where we are all looking out for each other, not trying to shaft each other - where an advisor really is an advisor, knowledgeably weighing up all the pros and cons, instead of being a salesman pushing only the benefits.
In recent years too we’ve seen the proliferation of investment products that even the ‘advisors’ didn’t understand properly, and of course they were far too busy sizing up marks to waste time on learning what it was exactly they were pushing, come on there’s commissions to be earned!!
The two ladies are entirely right to challenge their advisor in the court, and the only proper outcome is they win their claim.

Bollocks

[spqr64]

Irrespective of what bubble these two poor old ladies lived in would they not be aware that makrets fall as well as rising, that if making a large investment they should maybe ask for independent advise on the side, that if it was legal and binding maybe a solicitor should read it first?

They have a point but they are not completely innocent.

[dowtchaboy]

@spqr64

Irrespective of what bubble these two poor old ladies …
They have a point but they are not completely innocent.

It’s funny how the “Two retired women” has become “two poor old ladies” - they could be two 52 year old tough as nails women who made, or inherited, enough to be able invest €16M in addition to whatever else they have squirreled away.

It was a partnership with a group of other people - it wasn’t some smooth-talking salesman getting their signatures on a document allowing him power of attorney over afternoon tea at the Retirement Home.

I’d trust 2 “old women” to have a much better idea of who and what they were dealing with than 2 oul fellas in the clutches of any women under 50.

[onestepbehind]

Ah yes another sterling piece of journalism…

Let’s see,

The defendants are: Noreen Hynes, Larkinstown, Coolree, Co Wexford; Ambrose O’Brien, Kilcraigue, Kilcloon, Co Meath; Mary Murphy, Leinster Woods, Carton Demesne, Maynooth, Co Kildare; Mary Prenderville and Frankie Dwyer, both of Albany Road, Ranelagh, Dublin; Des O’Sullivan, Windermere, Dublin Road, Naas, Co Kildare, and Colm Sugrue, Glenabbey Road, Mount Merrion, Co Dublin.

AKA Tuskar developments.

TUSKAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
(In Receivership)
Notice is hereby given that on 19 February, 2009 under powers
conferred upon it by a Deed of Mortgage and Charge dated
16 October, 2007 made between (1) Noreen Hynes, Ambrose
O’Brien, Mary Murphy, Mary Prenderville, Frankie Dwyer, Des
O’Sullivan, Colm Sugrue, and Tuskar Development Company
Limited having its registered office at Joyce House, 22/23 Holles
Street, Dublin 2 trading as the Santa Maria Co-Ownership and
(2) Zurich Bank having its registered office at La Touche
House, IFSC, Dublin 1, Zurich Bank has appointed Michael
McAteer, Insolvency Practitioner, of Grant Thornton, 24-26
City Quay, Dublin 2 to be the Receiver of the whole or

[spqr64]

@dowtchaboy

@spqr64

Irrespective of what bubble these two poor old ladies …
They have a point but they are not completely innocent.

It’s funny how the “Two retired women” has become “two poor old ladies” - they could be two 52 year old tough as nails women who made, or inherited, enough to be able invest €16M in addition to whatever else they have squirreled away.

It was a partnership with a group of other people - it wasn’t some smooth-talking salesman getting their signatures on a document allowing him power of attorney over afternoon tea at the Retirement Home.

I’d trust 2 “old women” to have a much better idea of who and what they were dealing with than 2 oul fellas in the clutches of any women under 50.

I was being facetious (Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant) but I obviously wasnt facetious enough as you didnt geddit, geddit?

[Homeboy]

@Inis Man

No, the obligation is on the salesman to FULLY explain all the pitfalls to the clients, not hide em all away in baffling small print and terms.
Until recently, Ireland had a society that worked a great deal on trust, where terms and conditions and small print barely existed.
These ladies put full trust in their financial advisor because people from the old school came from a viewpoint where we are all looking out for each other, not trying to shaft each other - where an advisor really is an advisor, knowledgeably weighing up all the pros and cons, instead of being a salesman pushing only the benefits.
In recent years too we’ve seen the proliferation of investment products that even the ‘advisors’ didn’t understand properly, and of course they were far too busy sizing up marks to waste time on learning what it was exactly they were pushing, come on there’s commissions to be earned!!
The two ladies are entirely right to challenge their advisor in the court, and the only proper outcome is they win their claim.

This really says it all about Irish “society” and the direction it has taken. There was an era in Irish life where you COULD trust your bank manager, solicitor etc. I understand entirely that you can trust NO-ONE but yourself but this type of behaviour has diminished us as a nation.

[High_Noon]

@Homeboy

@Inis Man

No, the obligation is on the salesman to FULLY explain all the pitfalls to the clients, not hide em all away in baffling small print and terms.
Until recently, Ireland had a society that worked a great deal on trust, where terms and conditions and small print barely existed.
These ladies put full trust in their financial advisor because people from the old school came from a viewpoint where we are all looking out for each other, not trying to shaft each other - where an advisor really is an advisor, knowledgeably weighing up all the pros and cons, instead of being a salesman pushing only the benefits.
In recent years too we’ve seen the proliferation of investment products that even the ‘advisors’ didn’t understand properly, and of course they were far too busy sizing up marks to waste time on learning what it was exactly they were pushing, come on there’s commissions to be earned!!
The two ladies are entirely right to challenge their advisor in the court, and the only proper outcome is they win their claim.

This really says it all about Irish “society” and the direction it has taken. There was an era in Irish life where you COULD trust your bank manager, solicitor etc. I understand entirely that you can trust NO-ONE but yourself but this type of behaviour has diminished us as a nation.

Commissioned sales agents can not give financial advice without being subject to a conflict of interest. I am not saying there is anything wrong with commissioned sales agents (investment opportunities should be allowed to be marketed and sales people should be allowed to sell), but commissioned agents should not be thought of as financial advisers.

For investors that need advice, the sales agent should sell via, or with the involvement of, a financial adviser that is paid by the investor and not by the investment promoter.

People are asking for disappointment if they trust someone whose interests are not aligned with their own.

[xman]

@Inis Man

The two ladies are entirely right to challenge their advisor in the court, and the only proper outcome is they win their claim.

Yes definitely - rake in the profits on the way up, blame somebody else on the way down. Capitalism at its finest.

I mean, who amongst us hasn’t unwittingly entered into a €16m property development syndicate.

The carryon in the bust is worse than the boom. It’s fucking embarrassing reading this shite.

[dowtchaboy]

@spqr64

I was being facetious (Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant) but I obviously wasnt facetious enough as you didnt geddit, geddit?

I wasn’t being entirely oblivious to your phraseological manipulations, Legionnaire,
nor did I miss your point about their presumed financial innocence - it wasn’t your comment in particular - the whole thread seemed to be assuming helpless frail old ladies.

[polaris]

In 2010, debtors are either:

Frail seniors; scared kids who thought they would missed their chance to get on the ladder; naïve borrowers of money that was literally thrown at them by reckless banks; developers with the reading age of a 7 year old etc.

[Renting_And_Proud]

I cannot countenance how I’m gonna read all the shite the likes of the Indo & other media outlets will print over the next few years

[bilbot79]

@onestepbehind

Ah yes another sterling piece of journalism…

Let’s see,

The defendants are: Noreen Hynes, Larkinstown, Coolree, Co Wexford; Ambrose O’Brien, Kilcraigue, Kilcloon, Co Meath; Mary Murphy, Leinster Woods, Carton Demesne, Maynooth, Co Kildare; Mary Prenderville and Frankie Dwyer, both of Albany Road, Ranelagh, Dublin; Des O’Sullivan, Windermere, Dublin Road, Naas, Co Kildare, and Colm Sugrue, Glenabbey Road, Mount Merrion, Co Dublin.

AKA Tuskar developments.

TUSKAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
(In Receivership)
Notice is hereby given that on 19 February, 2009 under powers
conferred upon it by a Deed of Mortgage and Charge dated
16 October, 2007 made between (1) Noreen Hynes, Ambrose
O’Brien, Mary Murphy, Mary Prenderville, Frankie Dwyer, Des
O’Sullivan, Colm Sugrue, and Tuskar Development Company
Limited having its registered office at Joyce House, 22/23 Holles
Street, Dublin 2 trading as the Santa Maria Co-Ownership and
(2) Zurich Bank having its registered office at La Touche
House, IFSC, Dublin 1, Zurich Bank has appointed Michael
McAteer, Insolvency Practitioner, of Grant Thornton, 24-26
City Quay, Dublin 2 to be the Receiver of the whole or

Now pick a name, any name, Noreen Hynes?

The first tip is the best:

1: # Vision, being able to think ahead of the market so you have the right properties in place when the big demand happens.

[laughinglawyer]

Well if you cant countenance it…

…only one option then, adopt the Violet-Elizabeth position:

Skweem and Skweem and Skweem till your scccick !

[The_Unwelcome_Guest]

@polaris

In 2010, debtors are either:

Frail seniors; scared kids who thought they would missed their chance to get on the ladder; naïve borrowers of money that was literally thrown at them by reckless banks; developers with the reading age of a 7 year old etc.

Don’t forget the banks and Sean Fitzpatrick…