Irish Moral Hazard Organisation (IMHO)


@assetwatch thanks for the feedback, its all helpful:

Whether we make it repeatedly or not, it’s definitely the message of the letter.

Did you actually read the letter? Not trying to be smart, but genuinely need to know if the above above points were not clear ?


In ahead of me, more succinctly!


Yes I did. However this is about PR and what audiences “hear” or read is often “tone” as much or more than substance. The tone drowns out the substance of the points imho here. I am suggesting a different use of words and a more dispassionate, less scarily angry tone might be more persuasive among the not-already-converted.

People switch-off from edginess very easily .


+1 it’s not enough to be implicit

I thought the Elis O’Hanlon article was probably watered down/toned up. Any commentators who commented positively have bent over backwards to emphasise they don’t want families on the street - possibly at the insistence of an editor


There may be an empathy problem from the squeaky wheels who dominate the agenda but there is a not insignificant cohort emerging who hold no truck with proposals to bail out. Maybe the journal poll is a load of clap trap but I believe that secretly the majority agree with irish moral hazard organisations sentiments, just because it’s not pretty doesn’t mean it’s not valid. the slow emergence of this viewpoint into the mainstream at least provides a counter argument that can work towards a solution that all can feel part of.


I haven’t posted for some time now, but feel it prudent to give you my two cents, for what it’s worth.

Sooner rather than later, the story will need to change from ‘down with David Hall and non-compliant mortgagors’ to whom should we blame.

My suggestion would be that a quick look at NAMA would be prudent. A scandalous number of apartments have been siphoned off to foreign hedge funds at rather large discounts (NAMA continues to sell property at c. 300 million euro per month, and will do for the next 18 months or so), with very few if any being made available for sale to the general public.

Secondly, the majority of these apartments are now experiencing c.20% rental hikes. It would be prudent of IMHO to focus on solutions rather than bad-mouthing fools like David Hall and his cronies. That line will only go so far, and your new Sindo journalist ‘allies’ will be quick to turn on you at a moment’s notice.

If you prefer to carry on with what is working, you have my most sincere best wishes.


Why not blame the people who are not paying their debts? It’s not NAMA’s fault they took on unsustainable debt. They need to admit they can’t afford their houses, move out, and move on.


everyone knows that that is not going to happen, or at least not coming up to an election. Besides, if you were the ‘Killiney two’ or Barry O’Donnell or their ilk, would you have any intention of moving out, before you are forced? If you have the brass neck not to pay for the last 3-7 years, you are unlikely to pay unless you are named and shamed, and even then???

Coming up to an election, this is an extremely hot potato for any Politician. Nobody wants to end up on the wrong side of a hard-luck story, you being the aggressor.

Paying nothing is one thing, how about making intermittent payments, or low payments in the order of one to two hundred euro every few months, with a sob-story letter? One shoe will not fit all circumstances. If you wish to push, then push. But don’t make the mistake of pushing the wrong people. Look for solutions, not more blaming. A positive tone in IMHO’s letters, i.e. if XYZ were made to move out of their house (while not paying their mortgage, and the commercial loans on their X no. of btl’s), then perhaps a solution could be found to …

Feel free to disagree


What about pushing those who have made no payments at all in over 6 years?
Can a politician or anyone else make a credible case that it is reasonable to not make a single mortgage payment in 6 year?
If they can make that case, can they make the further case that it is reasonable the taxpayer should pay a portion of that mortgage?


Let me give you a quick example:-

say a couple with 2 children. Husband was self-employed until the business went under. Wife was housewife / employed but lost her job in or around the same time. Family is subsisting on one person’s dole payment, and neither can find work.

Alternatively, (i) two people hopelessly out of their depth in arrears, one working on low wages with kids at home. High childcare costs, bills etc. Little left over for mortgage, and feeling that even if mortgage paid in part, it would simply fall into a black hole; (ii) two people working, one low waged, second on medium wage - 2 kids, childcare costs, associated bills etc. Same issues as (i) above.

Just saying, but this is the likely the kind of story to be thrown back at you, if you vehemently pursue this one line.

Best focus on the likes of the Killiney 2 / BTL’s / persons with excess cash going on holidays whilst not paying mortgage. It is a no-brainer, everyone agrees with you and no one calls out ‘won’t someone think of the children?’

Obviously, you are both correct (IMHO & Mastissa), but what will achieve the better outcome.


I would be inclined not to water down your arguments too much. Sensible people know truth when they see it. If you start making big compromises, that is the beginning of the end. I would try to avoid attacking personalities but then who am I to advise, you are one of the leaders of a new movement that has the potential to make Ireland a much better, fairer country


All advise particularly welcome, and you’re right about the personality attacks. Always working to resist the temptation!


I wouldn’t worry too much about the subtleties just yet. Main thing is to get some coverage of an opposing view. The media narrative is still almost universally well disposed to the non-reposession policy.


I disagree. You can’t start making exceptions for hard luck stories. Who gets to ‘play God’? The government? The banks? There will always be people who fall on hard times. That is why we have to ensure that we have adequate social supports in place for people who do fall on hard times.

Think about it another way. I get a big promotion in work and get a big pay rise. I leverage my new salary and buy a palace in Killiney. I then tell my employer to go fcuk himself and likewise to my lender. I live a life on the dole and never pay my mortgage again. If I concoct a good ‘hard luck story’, I get to keep my gaff?


I don’t think the above is anywhere near a credible reason that you should not face repossession if you make no payments for 6 years.

On the different examples, microanalysis question, I think Rawkspider put it well earlier in the thread:


Caesar - no doubt, you are right. However, unless you are forced out, you will not get out, voluntarily.

As for playing ‘God’, you know just as well as I do the nature of the Banking system, and how things work on that level.

With respect to the property market, the government is effectively God (my apologies in advance the more religious contributors).

As for enforcement, perhaps I know a little more, and hence my pessimism, but I trust you have access to better and more up to date information.

As Billcall55 says, it is likely premature to be getting into these subtleties, but best to bear them in mind so as not to be too definitive in your (the IMHO organisation’s) outlook.

No questions, I fully agree with Rawkspider and IMHO - the law of contract ought to be fully adhered to. But it is not. It is the specific policy (of [successive] Governments and Banks) not to enforce the mortgage / commercial loan contracts which have the property market in such uncertainty. Rather than being too definitive in your analysis, it is best to leave yourself some leeway, to make allowances for the hard-luck story of someone outside of the Dublin market, where the value of the home has plummeted, and where renting carries all of the disadvantages which many of us are more than well aware.

Many are likely to enter bankruptcy, if and when this becomes a possibility. Things are not always clear-cut.

As above, you are each correct (i.e. people only respect what they pay for, and no one should get a free ride - especially when that free ride is being paid for by (other) taxpayers). However, what you appear to fail to grasp is that your message must be the correct message, not just the right message.


Key point being that they’ll move out into another home. They’re not being turfed out to live in doorways, just somewhere cheaper. Somewhere they can actually afford.

Y’know, like happened to me when the landlord put up the rent after I’d taken pay cuts.

Had to move out.

Them’s the breaks.


TheJournal poll has now closed.

15% of people voted yes to mortgage arrears bailout, no questions asked.

Now have an educated guess what % of mortgages are in arrears according to latest statistics?!


Father Sean Healy made the point that repossession of family homes could put many people at the top of the housing waiting list, because they would be out on the street. He said it could suck up a number of years of social housing supply with the result that the 90,000 people already on the list will have no prospect of getting any housing. Given that we have a housing crisis, this would seem to be a legitimate concern if it stacks up. My view is that it is no justification for a mortgage supplement but that it may be an argument for weakening the banks’ position in personal insolvencies.

By the way, I think it would be an unjustifiable interference in the market to tell the banks in what order to pursue arrears. The banks are entitled to use their resources to pursue those repossessions which will yield them the best result. This may mean foreclosing on people who are not in negative equity first.


So the people who really need them i.e. the ones actually on the street are going to discommode those one who need it but are not actually on the street therefore are less needy?

How’d ya like them apples.