Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
GREECE IS TO buy back €31.9 billion of its bonds from private investors at just over a third of their face value, the country’s debt agency has said, lightening its crushing debt load and meeting a key condition to receive vital rescue loans.
But the deal will cost slightly more than originally budgeted, and must be approved by bailout creditors who are lending Athens the necessary funds.
The agency said in a statement it will pay banks, funds and other private bondholders roughly 33.8 per cent of the bonds’ face value – a significant loss for some, but a highly attractive option for others who bought Greek debt at knock-down prices only a few months ago.
The process will shave some €20 billion off Greece’s €340 billion national debt, which is now mostly held by its bailout creditors — its European partners and the International Monetary Fund.
The yield on Greek 10-year bonds dropped to about 12.6 per cent this afternoon, its lowest since the March write-off and a sign of greater investor confidence in the country’s ability to manage its debt. The Athens stock index was up 0.5 per cent in afternoon trading.
The government had no immediate comment on the result of the deal, saying it would await a meeting of European finance ministers tomorrow, who must first sign off on the buyback going ahead.
Under the terms of the draft proposal, Greece would spend €11.3 billion of its bailout funds on the bonds — more than the €10 billion initially budgeted. The question remains whether bailout creditors will accept the extra outlay.
Jonathan Loynes, chief European economist at Capital Economics, said the required additional cost was unlikely to derail the deal. ”It would be extraordinary if the whole thing fell apart over an amount that small,” he said.
He said it was a relief that the deal had been successful because there was a danger that some investors might have held out for better terms.
“They’re over that hurdle and that’s all good news, but the major challenge is to try to achieve the lasting economic growth that really is going to be needed if the debt ratio is going to come down in the way it’s predicted,” he said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
So he got sick and she moved in 6 or 7 weeks ago? How did she afford the private rental house for the last 5 years?
Having said that, allowing her to stay until the end of Jan would hardly seem excessive, although there is probably some family that are entitled to the house waiting for years and hoping to have a place for Christmas.
Where did you get the 6/7 weeks & 5 years figures?
Agree that leaving them in the house until the end of January does not seem excessive, would really seem to be fair on the children who are grieving for their father
read the original article in the Wexford Echo – link included above
Read it there, cheers
Awful story but (and I’m ashamed to say) I’m becoming a little numb to these tragic stories as they are now a daily headline.
Where did she live before she moved in. She should have thought about her children before she left her own house.
She moved in with the children’s father to care for him during an illness. They must of got to see more of their Dad before his death, I think that would of been the most important thing for them.
Thanks Dara, I’ll try remember that next time
Why wasn’t she living with him all the time? before his illness? I’m sure it’s not as it seems tbh.
That’s really none of anyone’s business Donna.
None of these stories are what they seem
They split up years ago and only moved in at the end of September
Donna, the story from the Wexford Echo says they were married but separated with 5 years.
Alan , she went public about it herself so there’s bound to be questions asked .
Indeed there will be Suzie but why someone isn’t living with their children’s father isn’t relevant to the story. They were separated, beyond that is personal between partners and no one else’s business. Just because she went public doesn’t mean her life should be dissected.
Alan, it is relevant when she is looking for her estranged partners house. This just stinks of her trying to jump the housing list at the cost of someone else on the list who has probably been waiting the 10 years she is refusing too and now playing the sympathy card
You may need to read the piece again vocal. She’s not looking for the house. She has, in fact, said its not suitable for the family long term. All she’s looking for is a bit more time to sort out a new place to live and let her children grieve for a reasonable length of time. A couple of months shouldn’t make that much of a difference.
Also, the reason for a couple not being together has nothing to do with the housing list and is a personal issue and should be left as such.
You’re a quite heartless individual vocal……I really think some commentators here should be cast into the sea …how do some people become so hard faced
She is not entitled to keep the house and I know that’s harsh but the family at the top if the waiting list could be in more need of this home.
Read the article. She’s not asking to keep the house. She makes it very clear that she’s just asking to stay in in for a couple more months while she and her children get over a the loss.
Bereavement and moving house are two of the most stressful things you can go through, surely it’s not too much to ask that they not have both at the same time?
Who in the name of Jesus takes a picture at a loved ones grave?
Agreed, creepy looking smiles. Is that for this story or this a normal thing to do now?
Picture added for added sympathy
Seems to be. Was on Facebook a few days ago and seen a pic that was taken with a corpse at the wake – really, really creepy looking
Thank god someone said it, I get creeped out quite regularly on a daily basis from people posing for photos at a grave
People under the influence of Guinness farts perhaps?
The media does it all the time, they also film entire funerals and burials and put them on TV.
From the report she moved in to help with his illness – not because she knew he was dying, the house isn’t suitable for the family, their relationship seems to have not been conventional as in she lived elsewhere, maybe in private accommodation.
All she is looking for is some time, up until the end of January until she can save and move on – she will continue to pay the rent which is fair enough.
Have to say that some people have a cold and bitter outlook on the world.
They see the words “council house”and it’s open season.
Wants to work all of a sudden??? Moved into council house when she knew her partner was going to die. YeaHHHHH. Does she take us all to be fools?
Mary , there is people who will be fooled by this .
All of a sudden? Where’s that from? She’s got 1 lung and her surgeon says she’s not fit to work. She’ll hardly be able to do much if she needs oxygen regularly.
*Correction – occasionally, not regularly
Save for a deposit and buy a house like eveyone else or just dont have kids.
Maggie not everyone want’s to own a house
Yes they want everything free instead!
Some of the posters on this thread make me ashamed to be part of the human race…..this woman buried her children’s father 6 weeks ago….she has a serious life threatening illness…2 children could possibly be orphans any day …some posters here should be completely ashamed of themselves
Agreed Derek. It’s 2 kids who’ve just lost their father here. Letting them stay (in what they probably see as dads house) until after Christmas isn’t really asking too much. The mother is only asking for some time.
Pure heartless decision, lacking any common sense or human decency – like many posters here. Like you, this right here is the reason I don’t like people.
I don’t understand what could be so wrong in some people’s lives that they have to abuse a fragile woman and 2 small children who have lost their father and now they will lose their home ..shame on anybody who supports this decision ..
F**kheads Derek. It’s not their lives, it’s them.
If she knew he was dying she should have married him to avoid all of this.
They were both parents and should have looked after the children.
Tough situation but anybody with a bit of common sense would be looking out for the best option going forward not just ignoring it.
they were married – separated 5 years ago according to the Wexford Echo story
I heard her on the radio this morning but only got the tail ended of it. She moved in with him due to him being sick but also because the rent in her own place went up and the rent allowance went down so she could no longer afford it. Think the plan was to help out while he was sick and save towards a deposit for a new place. All she is asking for is to be allowed to stay till Janurary so her kids can grief for their father properly over christmas which is going to be hard for them and also to give her time to save.
I suppose we can take some comfort in the fact that people here are being almost as unkind to this family as they warw towards the bereaved travellers a couple of weeks ago. Equality at last!
have your say