The Galway Advertiser Giveth Then The Advertiser Taketh Away

There is no greater nor more resolute pimp my gaff operation in all of Connaught than the Galway Advertiser . In former times it was resplendent with up to 64 pages of unctous property platitudes in glorious colour.

This week it was only four pages , and they published this letter / Strewth :open_mouth: … ?aid=13345

thats right you dictate to the bank!!

holy hell thats a nasty situation, where do we get reposession figures from for the past few years(10-15) to get a long term benchmark for comparison?

AAAAAGGGGGHHHH!!! |O |O |O |O |O |O |O |O |O |O |O

If you don’t understand the following facts, you have no business investing in property, and certainly no business advising people on what to do.

A. You are spending money to own these things. Interest.
B. The longer you hold on, the more in the hole you get.
C. The longer you hold on the less the properties are worth.
D. There is virtually no chance of these properties shooting up enough in
value any time soon to break even.
E. You are standing on the brink of turning a debt of 10’s of thousands
that you could pay back over the course of a few years, into a much
bigger debt that you will never clear ever.

Who says that break even is the least that you’ll walk away with?
Losses happen…ALL THE TIME.

It’s not the initial bet that tells you you have a gambling problem, it’s chasing your losses in some deluded attempt to break even.

These newspapers with the EA vanity columns helped get a lot of people into trouble by spreading the myth that property would only ever go up. They should be ashamed of themselves for that.

But continuing now, when people in real trouble need to be told the facts, and instead they get this shit. It’s criminal. If there haven’t been already there will be suicides related to chasing the losses of the property boom, and these f*****s won’t give a damn. Just more column inches.


My concern would be this statement:

ALl well and good, but why explicilty neglect to provide suggestion designed to reduce the **risk **to which this person is exposed? Very dubious.