Spain’s monumental glut of new homes is still massive

Just to correct one point Hugh.... if I understand this correctly, all countries will not be at liberty whether to enforce this directive or not, since the inference from this statement implies differently

”A private equity fund will be able to register in one member state and get a ‘passport’ to operate in any EU state, while only being bound by the regulations in place in the state where it is registered.” 

So if they register in a state where the directive is employed and accepted, then thereafter that will give them free reign to enforce in other countries wherever they are passported. 

Perhaps someone can correct me if that interpretation is wrong?

Hugh_man - EU Directives are just that, Directives and it is up to each government how they are enforced or not.

Not quite. EU directives are legally binding when addressed to a particular nation. The exception is the CAP directives which are legally binding all member states.

Wikipedia

A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

You guys are getting well over the top obsessed with Vulture Funds who have no interest in individual mortgages.  

They did not cause the Financial Crisis.   Please read up the history related to the crisis.   Secondary Market trading is essential to avoid the illiquidity issues that contributed to the crisis.   

I agree Perry although light regulation is perhaps no bad thing.

During the financial crisis in Ireland, some vulture funds performed with great social responsibility. When a mortgagee found themselves in trouble the fund would buy the debt from the bank and the property from the mortgagee. The property was then rented back at an affordable rate for up to five years. The mortgagee was then able to buy the property back when back on their feet for an up to 20% discount. Of course, not all funds behave responsibly but should the majority suffer for the few who don't?

EU regulations state these funds have to offer the existing terms to the mortgagee anyway and in my experience, they always inform them when purchasing the debt. It's not in their interests to do otherwise. Allowing a mortgagee to block the purchase, however, is a very bad idea in my view and an obstacle to progress.

I don’t think anyone has slagged off the Vuture Funds, yes you are quite correct, bad debt has been traded for many years, quite sensibly and responsibly.

Whats has changed is Spanish banks selling off mortgages on properties they have had to repossess.

Previously Spanish banks were not permitted to take back a property IF there was negative equity, this has obviously changed as Vulture Funds will be paying rock bottom prices on the mortgages.

The other major issue is the registered ownership of the property.

Banks repossess one or numerous properties by Court Order.

They do not need to register their ownership as the Court has effectively given them similar protection offered by Registration.

They can therefore delay paying any Community Fees plus possibly IBI due putting pressure on Communities and Councils who have to wait for the Bank to meet its legal obligation to pay current year plus 3 previous years fees.

Best advice for Communities is increase your fees by approval at an AGM then offer massive discounts to owners who pay on time, maybe banks will then realise they should respond more rapidly.

Best advice for Communities is increase your fees by approval at an AGM then offer massive discounts to owners who pay on time, maybe banks will then realise they should respond more rapidly.

Absolutely agree. Try convincing people of the logic however, is very difficult. Some communities require unanimous agreements.

Unfortunately, offering discounts for paying up front can be challenged even if passed at an AGM.   Spain in general tends to lean slightly left and therefor protection of consumers and the less well off sits high on the the agenda.   Offering a discount to those who can afford to pay upfront disadvantages the less well off who often pay monthly on time.

The idea is sound, put in practice is actually not legal.  I know Communities do it, but it tends to be low discounts (five percent) and does not attract attention.

I agree it is unfair that some people pay on time and Banks, Builders, and some people with no real excuse leave the rest of the Community to carry the can by being in arrears.  I don't have a solution. 

Mickeyfinn

You touched upon a good point here with regard to Vulture Funds social responsibility.

Can I ask again where are these funds coming from, who is sourcing these funds? Are they being sourced in the main by American Banks such as Goldman Sachs? Are they in effect also not paying tax on these profits as they are allowed to be structured to make little or no paper profit?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/goldman-vulture-funds-collect-465m-from-distressed-irish-loans-1.3664476

I would ask what incentive do these unregulated vulture funds have to demonstrate social responsibility when they are frequently far removed from the societies they impact?

Perrypower

According to Maria’s blog where she made mention of the complaint made to the EU Commission, it appears not just about transparency but with regard to “unjust enrichment”.

“ The Credit Directive affirms that assignment of credits can never weaken the consumer's position. By not knowing who its creditor is, the consumer loses the opportunity to obtain a significant discount on his debt, which is enjoyed by a third party, a vulture fund, in an unjust enrichment.”

“ The Bank of Spain which allowed in its Circular 4/2004 for the transferred assets not to leave the balance sheets of the banks, encouraging a practice that only benefits the vulture funds and that seriously harms consumers”.

Has this complaint been upheld by the EU Commission?

Hugh Man

You are right to point out that this is not slagging off Vulture Funds, in effect it’s about striving for fairness and accountability to highlight those areas of unjust enrichment  AND lack of social responsibility, and how certain practices that they employ ultimately harm consumers.

The other aspect with regard to gaining unanimous agreement within communities,

Is it correct to say that some presidents of communities sadly do not always reflect the best interests of their communities? Do some demonstrate a conflict of interests from the outset by their lack of independence by “connection to the developer/Banks”? Or is this no longer the case?

——————

All too often the Banks and in this case unregulated vulture funds appear to sadly purposefully create highly complex scenarios, that to the common man/ woman remain hidden from view, leaving dependence on trustworthy law firms to defend when Govts and EU fail them. 

And then we have the knock on scenario that some law firms have not acted with all due diligence and in the best interests of their clients, further scapegoating the innocent citizen! (Thankfully now this is very gradually being addressed by those who are proving trustworthy and good advocates of citizens best interests.)

But the bottom line in answering Perrypower’s concern for solutions.... accountability and compliance by the Banks should be tackled wherever possible at source not after the event( as with the need for compulsory registration in land registry). 

In other words we all need to call for loopholes that allow the many unfair practices to flourish to be highlighted and addressed , and we should be demanding effective fair regulation as early as possible in the complex cycle of events. 

 Governments that truly represent the people should be continually reviewing these highly complex areas of major financial concern that ultimately impact innocent citizens, and the EU should do likewise. But that in itself opens up a can of worms and is reliant upon competent and independent regulators to enforce in a timely manner.

It’s in all our interests isn’t it to remain better informed and proactive in this regard....hence the Irish trying to gain support for a petition in relation to their concerns about unregulated vulture funds.

Ads

Decent, fair and responsible and reasonable regulation are of course the best way to protect the consumer and customer from unfair practices as well as events such as Sub Prime lending etc.

Sadly this did NOT exist in the US at the time of the last crash and exists even less in Europe currently, yes regulations and rules exist but they are often ignored or worked around to the benefit of the larger financial institutions many of whom are still regarded as too big to fail.

I have just read the EOS Banks Thread again and noted the many consumer complaints about a variety of Spanish Banks.

For some reason, whether it be traditional values, banks in Spain still command a level of esteem that is NOT justified and for that reason, yes both some reluctant Presidents and Administrators who lack the confidence or the necessary legal expertise are reluctant to push and bully banks who do things in their own way backed by expensive lawyers and advisors and appear to be permitted to get away with it by the Bank of Spain who would not want its industry to fail.

The majority of the larger vulture funds are American, funded by investors on the international money markets. The investors can be banks, pension funds, insurance companies the entire plethora of the capitalist system on which we all depend on to some extent. Like all financial enterprise they will operate where the tax system is the most favorable and the best profit returns are to be had. Ireland has recently closed a tax loophole where these funds were using charities to avoid taxation.

Social responsibility is at its minimum in capitalist systems where the ruling political party sympathy lies firmly within that system and where they obtain their support from the electorate. Post Brexit expect much more of the same as Britain allies itself closer to America and away from Europe and it's social democratic traditions. 

I would argue that one of the principal driving forces of Brexit has been the support of some of these funds who have their own political support figures agitating to leave whilst sitting in parliamentary disguise. The electorate fell for it. Once Britain leaves EU regulatory control watch the flow of money enter Britain as Johnson cuts taxes and regulation. Britain will become an off shore destination for hot and suspect money at the expense of social responsibility.

Mickeyfinn,

That would hold true for the EU who fail to implement infringement mechanisms in place to protect citizens as they are  strongly lobbied by the Banks, and frequently have turned blind eyes to stability mechanisms in place to protect. (Germany and France have benefitted from this). 

They frequently quote they have not the authority to do so under current treaty arrangements, so when citizens using a justice system in a country such as Spain become compromised by failure of the EU to respond, their justice systems become overwhelmed, and the innocent citizen pays the price in all manner of ways in the lengthy interim periods. 

In reality it becomes a Catch 22 scenario. Basically all too many have found from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE they have NO protections in this regard from the EU. Hugh man is absolutely right in this regard.

The benefactors are the Banks and now it appears the Venture funds, who use all manner of delaying ploys to deny their responsibilities, leaving the innocent citizens paying the price until such time as legal doctrine is established which takes decades and beyond. 

Maria has kindly identified that the complaint re Venture Funds to the EU appears to have taken a similar course....see her legal tip.

Legal Tip: 1456 - Spanish Law, Finance Regulators and hedge funds business examined by European Commission

If you remain open minded to these uncomfortable realities you see that citizens protection where financial protections are concerned come way down the pecking order from the EU and it appears that it is increasingly left to the innocent citizen to defend their rights individually through the courts, with all the subsequent impacts on a justice system struggling to cope. 

As for the UK....it is a well known fact that the UK is far more adept and trusted when it comes to Banking regulation, so this appears yet another reason to come out from an institution either impotent or unwilling to stand up to the Banks.

The mood music coming from the Conservatives hustings of late appears to be  becoming far more appreciative of the inequalities and need to address such,  so the focus should now be on who will become the next Governor  of the Bank of England!

British cotizens are now far more aware of the power of large corporations and powerful financial institutions and hopefully will remain proactive given this scenario, no matter which Political Party remains in power. 

At least we have an independent regulator to oversee and try and make Banks more accountable ( note the PPI scandal and the way citizens have had rights to return of monies), which is something the EU appear to be sadly lacking in terms of making financial institutions fully accountable in any responsible timeframe.
 

This message was last edited by ads on 03/07/2019.

Ads. The failure or otherwise of the Spanish legal system is not the fault of the EU but a failure of successive national governments since their return to democracy to implement much needed reforms.

This is like a game of table tennis. Your focus seems to be constantly critical of the EU when national policy fails yet never the opposite. Member states have a wide degree of autonomy. The Irish tax issue with these funds supports this point.

EU directives are often none binding. Instead of beating a stick against the wrong issue, focus please on where the real failure lies. If the EU intervenes in national sovereign affairs that potentially carries far more negativity than if it proved successful pursuading them to act themselves. A process that takes place as a matter of course if the state will only listen which they often don't. Hungary and Poland being prime examples.

Hungary and Poland  have sadly responded to an EU system that left them vulnerable to open borders without adequate controls in place to protect. But ironically at the same time they have also witnessed a mass exodus of skilled and unskilled citizens in search of work through major failures of strategic growth strategies. ( now recognised by the EU). This gave rise to right wing elements, not the other way round!

Having said that however I do not suggest that their methods that compromise the rule of law are acceptable, but neither are the failures by the EU acceptable when they compromise a nations cohesion and leave citizens vulnerable in this way.

I have criticised our own Govt (s) so it is wrong to suggest otherwise, but you fail to consider that the EU have not being made sufficiently accountable or are responsible for citizens disillusionment that are as a part consequence of EU’s major mismanagement and unwillingness to listen to genuine concerns and reform.

Ads, you are just too critical of the EU for me to take you seriously, sorry old bean but you really need to be abit more critical in your reading and alot more balanced in your criticism.

To stir the pot a bit more, I have just seen that the Brexit Party amongst six others is advocating a second referendum on proportional representation as the voting system for the UK.  We had one in 2011 that was 66/34 against any change from first past the post.  Seems it is okay for some to call for referendums to be rerun, but others are accussed of being anti democratic.  Go figure.

Ads I am  seriously beginning to think you are a Russian Troll.

For goodness sake Mickeyfinn, this is crazy talk so please stop this nonsense. And please stop personal messaging that is inciteful and unnecessary.

I find it sad when personal slants are used when opinions differ in this way. We are all entitled to our own opinions and sources of educational research and analysis and I had hoped that through civilised debate and listening to a variety of opinions both from an intellectual and first hand experiences that we could all learn and appreciate each other’s perspectives. 

Best we leave it there.

Tongue in cheek ads.

However your opposition to all things EU makes me seriously question your objectivity. I can see reasons for institutional reform the EU is by no means perfect, whatever is? Rejecting all its broader aims without acknowledgment of its aspirations and benefits for member states indicates another hidden agenda. 

Social media is awash with government trolls attempting to influence political debate. If you are innocent I am contrite.

Perrypower.

Get real, many people are calling for a rethink on some sort of Proportional Representation in the UK, other than Labour and Tories, as sensible Coalition Government has to be the future IF Democracy is to survive.

First past the post will no longer give us majority government, we are all becoming too polarised.

I believe the latest You Gov U.K. poll for the next election suggests

Brexit Party 22%

Tories.        22%

Labour.      20%

Lib Dems   19%

Even a new election will not solve  the dilemma we currently find ourselves in, neither will a new referendum if Remain, Deal on Offer or No Deal are the questions.

Mickey you bend with the wind, personal insults to Ads when he offers a rational argument and then you tell us the EU is highly regulated on one hand then tell us it’s not the EU s fault if certain National governments are inept or even corrupt.

Which is it?

Mickeyfinn,

I am as critical as you in terms of hidden agendas so that is one thing we can perhaps agree on.

But please accept that there are many reasons why I and many others have concluded that it is right to leave the EU, and if this does not meet with your approval then we have to agree to disagree. But please no more personal unwarranted slants, or inferences that you are the only one with objectivity.