When does personal responsibility come into play ? These ’ investors ’ were motivated by pure greed . They invested in overseas properties with zero knowledge of the local economy . Most bought off the plans at expo’s without even visiting the countries .
Common sense would have told anyone that the property supplmements were massively biased. The supplements wouldnt have existed without the advertising revenue from new developments and estate agents on other properties. Just like no wall street firm will ever put a sell rating on a stock like microsoft or google, no property supplement is ever going to downright question the hand that feeds it.
Naturally, in the hope of looking more balanced the supplements now acknowledge the negatives overhanging the market, but they still have that persistant undertone which seems to want to suggest that the crash happened for good reasons, but value is continuously just around the corner.
One of the biggest problems with investing in any asset, beit property or shares etc is that the very experts that we are led to believe have all the answers, will only ever give the best possible analysis that they can justify, right up to the point, which if they went beyond would make people question their credibility. Estate agents are paid by the sellers of a property, property supplements by the developers etc and estate agents who advertise within the pages and wall street, goodbodys etc are paid by the companies whose very shares they are trying to sell into the public domain.
Thats why people need to look beyond these biased playforms and do their own research, listen to the contrarian arguments etc, which tend to only every be located on sites like this, zero hedge etc etc
Going forward, peolle have no excuse for listening to the mass media and making devisions based off the opinion of a perceived expert.
I still don’t buy the argument that greed caused the property bubble.
Hey, I’m seriously greedy and I didn’t buy an overpriced house. In fact, it was greed that stopped me from overpaying.
If I had been content to be in the same financial position as the average punter, I would have paid up and joined the rat race. But, alas, I was too greedy and wanted a better financial future than the average punter was signing up for, so I didn’t buy.
I personally think investors have been hard done by and maligned by the press in the aftermath of all this. I think investors are totally justified in seeking reparations for the losses incurred by the over zealous property porn writers that caused many of them to suffer hardship as a result of an unregulated body of people politically manipulated (as is evident in this country) led them to invest their funds badly.
These investors should form their own representative group and maybe call them something like Give One Back Savings High Interest Terms Even Samollians
Interesting article but it’s really just a story of how people are lashing out rather than being grown up and taking responsibility for their own actions.
Much as we all agree that property journalists were reckless industry shills, you couldn’t seriously sue them. You buy a paper for €2. It’s full of advice and opinion but you’ve no professional relationship with these eejits. They’re not your financial advisor.
You can’t sue the sports editor if he tips a horse that doesn’t win; or sue the horoscope writer for mystically suggesting you quit your job; or sue the agony aunt for telling you to marry the wrong person.
It’s a bit embarrassing that international press are reporting on the cry-baby strops people here are throwing here. Particularly for ‘investors’ who snapped up bargains in Bulgaria - it would be ridiculous to file a case against even the worst property hack in town.
Typical example of this kind of thing at its worst
Priced in July at 180p a share, despite several people warning in the mainstream press that the price made absolutely no sense, especially after several serious red-flags were highlighted aside from the fact that it has yet to make a penny in profit.
Yet, the leads / company stick to their guns. They let retail users of the Ocado service in on the “bargain”
It prices at 180p, collapses the first day and is now at 135p and going lower every day that passes.
A loss of 25% in a month is what people get for being dedicated users of the product, loving the service, yet assuming that the IPO was coming at a ‘fair price’
I have yet to meet a vendor who is interested in selling anything at a fair price. Their goal is to maximise there take, ie charge as much as they can get away with charging. Same principle applies to those selling shares, properties or anything else.
It is sonewhat nieve to expect the vendor to ensure that the buyer is treated fairly.