Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Repossessions

1…6791112…15

Comments

  • #242
    arbitrage
    Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭arbitrage


    A review of planning across 34 city and county councils found that in 2008 42,000 hectares were zoned for residential purposes — enough for 4m extra people on top of the 4.4m population at that time.


    An Taisce further claims that 40% of the €75bn property portfolio transferred to Nama was categorised as “development land” which will be reclassified to agriculture over the coming years. This will result in the value of Nama’s development land plummeting from a paper figure of €30bn to a single-digit figure, costing tens of billions in losses for taxpayers over generations.


  • #243
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    The healthcare bill is largely public sector pay and pensions. ~800,000 persons are entirely dependent on the state for all of their income, between the public sector and the unemployed. The workforce is what, 2, 2.4 million? The upshot is that out of every three people two are paying for the third in taxes. The solution obviously isn't to tax the two to keep the third in the manner to which they are accustomed, its to cut the spending on the third.

    We have a total public sector of approx 395,000 (down about 50,000 since 2008, through non-replacement policies). While you may argue that this is too high- in comparison to other EU countries- its the second lowest number of public sector employees per head of population, and its the lowest 10 in the 2011 OECD survey. The portion of the healthcare bill, when ascribed to various subheads- has fallen significantly in the pay subhead since 2008 (superannuation has risen- but this is a reflection of increased numbers opting for early retirement on pre-wage cut salary scales).

    We have cut the paybill for the public sector- in two directions- by reducing numbers by 12% and also through paycuts and the abolition or serious curtailment of non-core pay disbursements (travel/various allowances etc). We have also initiated significant pension deductions for post 1995 employees. Certainly there is lots of further scope to tackle allowances and other payments- however the bashing the public sector gets on an ongoing basis in the media- almost seems like a vendetta, rather than a fair assessment of the situation- when you sit down and look at the figures.

    With respect of our unemployment bill- the fact of the matter is that the vast bulk of the new unemployed are predominantly men, many of whom left school early without any qualifications- to get into the construction sector (and who can blame them when brickies were bringing home more net pay than public sector surgeons). When the bubble burst- this cadre of people had no fallback position- and indeed if the economy recovers- unless they receive significant training and assistance towards qualifications- they are going to languish on the dole queues forever (or unless they emigrate- as significant numbers are electing to do of their own volition).

    We have not made significant cuts to core social welfare entitlements- we have cut many of the fringe payments- and indeed the proposals are to cut even more of them. Our headline social welfare rates are startling- when compared to most EU countries- hell, our basic social welfare rate is higher than 3 of the members of OPEC. Our cost of living is higher here too- however we need to ask ourselves- what should social welfare pay for- and why is our system a disincentive to working- as it most certainly is........

    We have much wrong in our country- and do need to make significant revisions to literally everything we do. Playing the private sector card against the public sector- and vice versa- is simply letting the politicians off the hook- and honouring the sacrificial goat that Independent Media like to roast- as it sells papers....... Much is wrong in our country- and we do need debate- however instead of regurgitating sensationalism from the Indo- its probably better to look at facts........?


  • #244
    arbitrage
    Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭arbitrage


    Any figures for the number of mortgages granted so far this year?


  • #245
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    arbitrage wrote: »
    Any figures for the number of mortgages granted so far this year?
    Off the top of my head, the numbers are down 93% in volume terms since the peak of the bubble, and 97% in value.


  • #246
    Villa05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,723 ✭✭✭Villa05


    arbitrage wrote: »
    Have any figures been given on the percentage of mortgages on interest only deals? What is the average term for these deals?
    Down 30% on the previous quarter


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    thewing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 661 ✭✭✭thewing


    http://ibf.ie/Libraries/Research_Statistics/IBFPwC_Mortgage_Market_Profile_Q1_2012.sflb.ashx


  • #248
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Davy's hinting at necessity to repossess BTL in arrears.
    It is a no brainer really unless you have an angle for the status quo.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0817/davy-urges-banks-to-take-action-on-btl-mortgages-business.html

    http://www.davy.ie/LR?id=5281


  • #249
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Repossessing any property not protected under the Family Home act- is a total no-brainer..... Why is it so controversial? Its simple business practice- you have a loan secured on an asset. You are unable to service the loan. QED, you loose the asset. It really is that simple.


  • #250
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Repossessing any property not protected under the Family Home act- is a total no-brainer..... Why is it so controversial? Its simple business practice- you have a loan secured on an asset. You are unable to service the loan. QED, you loose the asset. It really is that simple.

    All very well, but the bank then has to realise the asset. That means throwing more property on the market and further depressing prices. That leads to more negative equity and more arrears leading to further repossessions and on it goes. It will also cause higher rents since the supply of rental property will go down. This creates a problem for prospective buyers who cannot save a deposit because of higher rents and because the banks will insist on a higher deposit because of falling prices caused by selling former buy to lets.


  • #251
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    It will also cause higher rents since the supply of rental property will go down.
    I don't see how - it's not like the property vanishes, it is either bought buy a landlord and ends up back on the rental market, or houses a household, thereby reducing the demand for rental property by one unit.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    All very well, but the bank then has to realise the asset. That means throwing more property on the market and further depressing prices. That leads to more negative equity and more arrears leading to further repossessions and on it goes. It will also cause higher rents since the supply of rental property will go down. This creates a problem for prospective buyers who cannot save a deposit because of higher rents and because the banks will insist on a higher deposit because of falling prices caused by selling former buy to lets.

    Your whole post is a mess and full of lies but I will point out this.
    Negative equity does not increase arrears.


  • #253
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    All very well, but the bank then has to realise the asset.

    And what is wrong with the bank realising the asset? Would you rather the hard-pressed taxpayer toss a few billion more to the banks instead? Someone has to realise the asset and any profit or loss associated with it.
    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    That means throwing more property on the market and further depressing prices.

    Why do you imagine that the BTL properties will simply be put bank on the market depressing prices. The current proposals are to set up in the first instance agents for collecting rent from pre-existing tenants (this part is actually up and running) followed by small property management sections- who would manage the property and seek tenants for them, and fulfill all statutory obligations, on behalf of the bank towards the tenants. So- the bank would become a landlord. The issue here is- a lot of BTL landlords have decided unilaterally not to pay their mortgages, and divert the cash elsewhere.If the banks were getting their mortgages- they'd have no interest in going down this road at all.
    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    That leads to more negative equity and more arrears leading to further repossessions and on it goes.

    Negative equity doesn't lead to arrears, and the arrears in the case of BTL property are in a not insignificant number of cases, deliberate arrears.
    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    It will also cause higher rents since the supply of rental property will go down.

    How so? There is nothing here to change the supply of rental property. Banks are repossessing property. They are not seeking vacant possession. They are not kicking tenants out. They are appointing agents to collect rent. This is all happening right now. In future its foreseen that there could be some sort of joint management agency for the nationalised banks, with smaller ones for Ulster Bank and BOI that they may manage at a local level (I don't know how it might work- but the day we see property for rent in the window of the bank, may not be far away).

    You are making a lot of presumptions- that are not backed up with what is actually happening on the ground.
    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    This creates a problem for prospective buyers who cannot save a deposit because of higher rents and because the banks will insist on a higher deposit because of falling prices caused by selling former buy to lets.

    Prospective purchasers will have to save deposits. Sure. Deposits may be 20-30-40% of the purchase price of the property (or the bank valuation of the property- which may be an entirely different kettle of fish). This is how it happens everywhere- and is not some sort of bizarre punishment for Irish purchasers. 100% (or even 110%) mortgages were an aberration that should never have occurred, and which will never occur again. People need to get their heads around this.

    Of far more pertinence to property prices- is NAMA selling property with built-in 20/30% discounts to current prices without the balance being due for a number of years. Aka- offering an insurance policy to potential purchasers against further price falls, but by this action, also almost dictating further price falls going forward......???


  • #254
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    smccarrick wrote: »
    And what is wrong with the bank realising the asset? Would you rather the hard-pressed taxpayer toss a few billion more to the banks instead? Someone has to realise the asset and any profit or loss associated with it.



    Why do you imagine that the BTL properties will simply be put bank on the market depressing prices.
    Realising means selling.
    smccarrick wrote: »
    The current proposals are to set up in the first instance agents for collecting rent from pre-existing tenants (this part is actually up and running) followed by small property management sections- who would manage the property and seek tenants for them, and fulfill all statutory obligations, on behalf of the bank towards the tenants. So- the bank would become a landlord. The issue here is- a lot of BTL landlords have decided unilaterally not to pay their mortgages, and divert the cash elsewhere.If the banks were getting their mortgages- they'd have no interest in going down this road at all.

    The banks are doing it with larger portfolios. They will not be doing it with small portfolios. Most BTLs are in the small portfolio category. It is not efficient to appoint agents to small portfolios. the receivers have to be paid, the letting agent has to be paid. . Top dollar has to be paid for all repairs. The banks have announced sensibly that they will not be doing this.
    smccarrick wrote: »

    Negative equity doesn't lead to arrears, and the arrears in the case of BTL property are in a not insignificant number of cases, deliberate arrears

    If there are deliberate arrears the banks can just sue for the money.
    smccarrick wrote: »
    How so? There is nothing here to change the supply of rental property. Banks are repossessing property. They are not seeking vacant possession. They are not kicking tenants out. They are appointing agents to collect rent. This is all happening right now. In future its foreseen that there could be some sort of joint management agency for the nationalised banks, with smaller ones for Ulster Bank and BOI that they may manage at a local level (I don't know how it might work- but the day we see property for rent in the window of the bank, may not be far away).

    You are making a lot of presumptions- that are not backed up with what is actually happening on the ground.

    You are assuming the banks are going to turn into landlords. They are no. they have said so. The banks have now realised in other sectors such as hotels that receiverships are a disaster. Rent receivership sounds well in theory but when the receivers have to confront the RTB they will soon find themselves in a morass. Months to get a hearing, anarchic decisions and no enforcement. How long will they put up wth it?
    smccarrick wrote: »
    Prospective purchasers will have to save deposits. Sure. Deposits may be 20-30-40% of the purchase price of the property (or the bank valuation of the property- which may be an entirely different kettle of fish). This is how it happens everywhere- and is not some sort of bizarre punishment for Irish purchasers. 100% (or even 110%) mortgages were an aberration that should never have occurred, and which will never occur again. People need to get their heads around this.

    Bigger deposits mean a longer saving period, less time in the market and lower prices. What goes on elsewhere does not change this.

    FDR solved the Great Depression in the 1930's by doubling the length of every mortgage. Money that was going into the banks paying off capital was freed up and spent in the economy thus stimulating investment and jobs.


  • #255
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    You are assuming the banks are going to turn into landlords. They are no. they have said so. The banks have now realised in other sectors such as hotels that receiverships are a disaster. Rent receivership sounds well in theory but when the receivers have to confront the RTB they will soon find themselves in a morass. Months to get a hearing, anarchic decisions and no enforcement. How long will they put up wth it?
    This doesn't explain how houses are disappearing into thin air when they are repossessed. Can you please explain how the amount of property available for people to live in decreases when the ownership of a property changes?


  • #256
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    This doesn't explain how houses are disappearing into thin air when they are repossessed. Can you please explain how the amount of property available for people to live in decreases when the ownership of a property changes?

    A property may have been rented by a number of single people. When it is repossessed it may be sold to a newly formed household of persons previously living with parents. The number of houses available for rental on the market goes down. The number of available tenants does not go down correspondingly.


  • #257
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    A property may have been rented by a number of single people. When it is repossessed it may be sold to a newly formed household of persons previously living with parents. The number of houses available for rental on the market goes down. The number of available tenants does not go down correspondingly.
    Or a house may have been lived in by a single person/family, and when it is repossessed it is bought by a landlord who rents it to a number of single people...

    No? :confused:


  • #258
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Or a house may have been lived in by a single person/family, and when it is repossessed it is bought by a landlord who rents it to a number of single people...

    No? :confused:

    Much less likely. There are far fewer landlords in the market. The reality is that over a large sample there will be a reduction in the number of available rental units without a corresponding reduction in the number of tenants. Rents are rising in some areas due to the fact that the rental stock is declining. There is no new building and existing landlords are exiting the market. They are not being replaced by new landlords.


  • #259
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    Much less likely. There are far fewer landlords in the market. The reality is that over a large sample there will be a reduction in the number of available rental units without a corresponding reduction in the number of tenants. Rents are rising in some areas due to the fact that the rental stock is declining. There is no new building and existing landlords are exiting the market. They are not being replaced by new landlords.
    I'm sorry but this is total nonsense. I know for a fact that many landlords are expanding their holdings - the ones getting out are the small-timers who got in during the bubble to buy rental property 'as a pension'. Now the professionals and new entrants who dodged the bubble are mopping up these properties.

    Your whole post is a raft of unsubstantiated claims and conjecture posing as fact.


  • #260
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I'm sorry but this is total nonsense. I know for a fact that many landlords are expanding their holdings - the ones getting out are the small-timers who got in during the bubble to buy rental property 'as a pension'. Now the professionals and new entrants who dodged the bubble are mopping up these properties.

    Your whole post is a raft of unsubstantiated claims and conjecture posing as fact.

    There are more going out than in. There are some bottom feeders. There are published statistics regarding buyer profiles. The percentage of investors is way down.


  • #261
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    There are more going out than in. There are some bottom feeders. There are published statistics regarding buyer profiles. The percentage of investors is way down.
    Can you please link to these statistics?


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    TheTurk1972
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭TheTurk1972


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    There are more going out than in. There are some bottom feeders. There are published statistics regarding buyer profiles. The percentage of investors is way down.

    I know a lot of investors either entering the the market now or just about ready to pull the trigger. DOnt know too many FTBs though.
    Where are these published profiles?


  • #263
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Milk & Honey - any chance of a link to those statistics you were relying on?


  • #264
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Milk & Honey - any chance of a link to those statistics you were relying on?
    http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/students-go-flat-out-in-rent-race-3203838.html

    If all of these buy to let investors are as active as you claim, why is the number of properties for rent 12% lower than last year?


  • #265
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/students-go-flat-out-in-rent-race-3203838.html

    If all of these buy to let investors are as active as you claim, why is the number of properties for rent 12% lower than last year?

    That piece of seasonal tripe is based upon a daft report (which as usual should be taken with a large pinch of salt).
    Just because there are less properties to rent on Daft does not mean there are less rental properties.


  • #266
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/students-go-flat-out-in-rent-race-3203838.html

    If all of these buy to let investors are as active as you claim, why is the number of properties for rent 12% lower than last year?
    Ok, so you made up these statistics. Fair enough - you could just come out and admit it.


  • #267
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    smccarrick wrote: »
    Repossessing any property not protected under the Family Home act- is a total no-brainer..... Why is it so controversial? Its simple business practice- you have a loan secured on an asset. You are unable to service the loan. QED, you loose the asset. It really is that simple.

    Except one needs to always look at who is involved.
    There was a huge tranche of would be Donald Trumps created during the bubble and they aren't all builders or EAs.
    I would guess there are a hell of a lot, including the professional classes, up to their necks in debt because they got involved in the property game and these people are connected, organised and vocal enough to try and dictate the direction of policy.

    I always wonder how many more media heads besides Mike Murphy and Gay Byrne were playing the property game ?

    If you ever take a look at the threads or indeed the media articles against property tax, half of those very vocal against it are talking about how tenants should pay because they are the ones living in the area and using public services.
    Similar with the anti "removal of section grant status" brigade protecting their investments.

    BTW these drag out the poor families trying to scrap by and the protection of the home as a cover for themselves.
    Remember the Dalkey couple and their repossession ?
    Initially it sounded like the evil MAN was turfing some poor old pensioners out on their ear, until the real facts were made publicly known.
    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    All very well, but the bank then has to realise the asset. That means throwing more property on the market and further depressing prices. That leads to more negative equity and more arrears leading to further repossessions and on it goes. It will also cause higher rents since the supply of rental property will go down. This creates a problem for prospective buyers who cannot save a deposit because of higher rents and because the banks will insist on a higher deposit because of falling prices caused by selling former buy to lets.

    As others have pointed out that highlighted section is pure sh**e.

    And the only way that would be true is if people refuse to pay their mortgage because they think it is now worth a lot more than the value of their property.
    Note the word REFUSE.
    Zamboni wrote: »
    That piece of seasonal tripe is based upon a daft report (which as usual should be taken with a large pinch of salt).
    Just because there are less properties to rent on Daft does not mean there are less rental properties.

    Speaking of numbers on daft.
    I did a check the other day on that daft price monitoring website and found some properties are now marked as Sold or Delisted when in fact I know they are still For Sale and have even had viewing over last few months.

    I know there are properties on Daft (and probably Myhome) which have long since stopping having physical for sale signs outside them but are still advertised on line.
    Do we now have a situation where ads are being removed from online, but are still very much for sale ?

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • #268
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,531 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Many rental ads on Daft, mainly for MUDs, may have multiple properties behind the ad. I know of one case locally where there is one ad for 24 properties.

    Daft stats count it as one, reality is 24.


  • #269
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    MYOB wrote: »
    Many rental ads on Daft, mainly for MUDs, may have multiple properties behind the ad. I know of one case locally where there is one ad for 24 properties.

    Daft stats count it as one, reality is 24.

    Yet RTE made this story all doom and gloom yesterday on the news.
    The media don't question the data sufficiently. They just see a seasonal headline.
    So a top story on national news is actually - An interpretation of an interpretation of a bad data set constructed by vested interests.
    It is so sad it is funny.


  • #270
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2012/08/23/austerity-cant-help-were-heading-for-mass-defaults

    David seems to think a couple of strategic defaulters could be the thin end of the wedge and go "viral".
    If this is a possibility, it should be damned clear that repossession of the asset will be a definite consequence.
    If anything the repossession moratorium is an incentive to strategically default.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Ok, so you made up these statistics. Fair enough - you could just come out and admit it.

    No, I didn't make them up.

    http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&p=605487


Advertisement