Repossessions

ballyharpat · 29-03-2012 9:52pm

I see your point and I sympathise with people that are going to lose the house that belongs to the bank and have to move to rental accommodation, however, lots of people are and will be renting for a long time, the government/taxpayer is not subsidising everyone to live in a better house than they can afford.

What about those people that worked hard during the boom to pay off their mortgages and now when the recession hits, maybe thay have no money and no jobs, some may even have to sell their large-paid for house and purchase a cheaper one to access funds. Do the get reimbursed for having paid the overpriced (then market value) of their house??

We have to be fair to all people, that is one big flaw in this country, the people that try to get ahead by being frugal and working hard get shafted.

the money that the banks have is there for security, it belongs to the taxpayer, it is not there to absorb all the losses of people that bought in the boom.

CiaranC · 29-03-2012 10:06pm

Its absolute nonsense to pretend we can bailout banks, financial institutions, bondholders and private property owners with public money in order to keep a failed economic model going. Lets just declare ourselves a socialist republc, work within that framework and be done with it.

daltonmd · 29-03-2012 10:07pm

ballyharpat wrote: »

I see your point and I sympathise with people that are going to lose the house that belongs to the bank and have to move to rental accommodation, however, lots of people are and will be renting for a long time, the government/taxpayer is not subsidising everyone to live in a better house than they can afford.

Thank you - and again I have to stipulate that I rent, have no property, don't work in the industry and have absolutely no vested interest in this.

It's not about people losing their homes -if we accept that boom prices will not be reached again and house prices have fallen by at least 50%, and combine this with people being unable to service a 350k mortgage - but they can service a 175k mortgage - then can you not see that by repossessing their home which means that they have to rent that this means that NONE of the debt is recouped? Keeping them in their home with a mortgage that they can meet, that is now the value of their home, that we recoup half or more of the debt?

ballyharpat wrote: »

what about those people that worked hard during the boom to pay off their mortgages and now when the recession hits, maybe thay have no money and no jobs, some may even have to sell their large-paid for house and purchase a cheaper one to access funds. Do the get reimbursed for having paid the overpriced (then market value) of their house??

I'm not quite with you? If you sold your home during the boom and bought a cheaper one then didn't you benefit?

ballyharpat wrote: »

We have to be fair to all people, that is one big flaw in this country, the people that try to get ahead by being frugal and working hard get shafted.

Does that not apply to hard working people who bought homes during the boom, homes that they could afford, that they now cannot because of the recession?

ballyharpat wrote: »

the money that the banks have is there for security, it belongs to the taxpayer, it is not there to absorb all the losses of people that bought in the boom.

Actually the money that the taxpayer provided incorporated mortgage losses - that was in the recapitilisation programme - the banks want to be bailed out by the taxpayer and have the same taxpayer repaying them loans that they have been provided for.

daltonmd · 29-03-2012 10:08pm

CiaranC wrote: »

Its absolute nonsense to pretend we can bailout banks, financial institutions, bondholders and private property owners with public money in order to keep a failed economic model going. Lets just declare ourselves a socialist republc, work within that framework and be done with it.

I mean that the banks should write down the debt - we're already on the hook for it Ciaran.

CiaranC · 29-03-2012 10:14pm

daltonmd wrote: »

I mean that the banks should write down the debt - we're already on the hook for it Ciaran.

I think everyone has a different notion of what "we" means these days

ballyharpat · 29-03-2012 10:22pm

daltonmd wrote: »

Thank you - and again I have to stipulate that I rent, have no property, don't work in the industry and have absolutely no vested interest in this.

It's not about people losing their homes -if we accept that boom prices will not be reached again and house prices have fallen by at least 50%, and combine this with people being unable to service a 350k mortgage - but they can service a 175k mortgage - then can you not see that by repossessing their home which means that they have to rent that this means that NONE of the debt is recouped? Keeping them in their home with a mortgage that they can meet, that is now the value of their home, that we recoup half or more of the debt?

They bought for 350, prob have 15-20 paid off, they now owe 330, the house is repossessed and sold for 175, they now owe 155, file for bankrupcy and they are clear, the bank gets their money from someone that bought the house at the current market valuecan you not see that??

I'm not quite with you? If you sold your home during the boom and bought a cheaper one then didn't you benefit?

Not saying they sold during the boom, please read what I wrote, they had to sell to access cash and downsized. People that are not in arrears and that don't have mortgages are also losing their jobs and being hit with big taxes, people in arrears are not being singled out for this, it is raining on everyone!

Does that not apply to hard working people who bought homes during the boom, homes that they could afford, that they now cannot because of the recession?

That's right, they 'cannot afford' the house, If I can't afford something, I'm afraid I don't get to keep it???

Actually the money that the taxpayer provided incorporated mortgage losses - that was in the recapitilisation programme - the banks want to be bailed out by the taxpayer and have the same taxpayer repaying them loans that they have been provided for.

The banks are owned by the taxpayers-the Irish banks, it is our money, no I do not think we should be letting people live in their 3 bed houses if they cannot afford them, I want the money to stay in the banks to give them capital, once it's used to bail out those in arrears, that's it gone. Another point, what about banks outside of Ireland, Rabo, RBS etc. if they give writedowns, Who pays them?? or maybe just ppl that have a mortgage with Irish banks should get a writedown???

ballyharpat · 29-03-2012 10:24pm

daltonmd wrote: »

I mean that the banks should write down the debt - we're already on the hook for it Ciaran.

No we are not on the hook for it, we are not on the hook for it until that money is spent, it is there to be used as capital by the banks....

shangri la · 30-03-2012 2:10am

If they must move out and declare bankruptcy so be it.

They won't be living under a bridge.

Someone else will buy the house and in the meantime it can be rented by the banks liquidator.

you do not get to have half your mortgage written off and go about your day as usual. Cloud coo coo land!

pawnacide · 30-03-2012 9:09am

shangri la wrote: »

If they must move out and declare bankruptcy so be it.

They won't be living under a bridge.

Someone else will buy the house and in the meantime it can be rented by the banks liquidator.

you do not get to have half your mortgage written off and go about your day as usual. Cloud coo coo land!

Some will .. some won't, and why? Coz it makes more sense to the banks from a financial perspective, chances are you will never see the figures or know exactly what's happening. Even Patrick Honahon, not exactly a bastion of socialist thinking , has suggested that banks begin repossessions but only of buy to let properties.

shangri la · 30-03-2012 11:29am

Any figures for the number of people waiting in the wings in Ireland with E200k burning a hole in their pocket for a house?

There are 30-50k houses/apts in danger of repossession. The rental market can take a fair amount of those and the houses in the middle of nowhere will have to be sold for under 50k or they will have to be knocked after another few years of neglect.

Regardless, there is no reason to write down mortgages in 99% of cases. after they have been evicted they can declare bankquptcy if they cant meet the negative equity payments.

Zamboni · 30-03-2012 11:37am

shangri la wrote: »

If they must move out and declare bankruptcy so be it.

They won't be living under a bridge.

Someone else will buy the house and in the meantime it can be rented by the banks liquidator.

you do not get to have half your mortgage written off and go about your day as usual. Cloud coo coo land!

I agree.
Cease the repossession moratorium, flog the houses off, get a functioning property market, deal with the social housing issue and let the cards fall where they may.
The Government is keeping the market in an orchestrated limbo because they are scared of realising the losses.
Well I say better to know where you stand (for good or bad) with a functioning system than being stuck in purgatroy with a broken system.

pawnacide · 30-03-2012 12:08pm

Zamboni wrote: »

Well I say better to know where you stand (for good or bad) with a functioning system than being stuck in purgatroy with a broken system.

This would be a short term solution and would not fix anything .. you're advocating a solution that benefits fewer people than it hurts and I can see no reason to allow that to happen apart from a blind and impassionate belief in a completely free market. Fortunately those in Government dont agree with you or at least believe that the majority of their voters don't agree with you.

Zamboni · 30-03-2012 12:15pm

pawnacide wrote: »

This would be a short term solution and would not fix anything .. you're advocating a solution that benefits fewer people than it hurts and I can see no reason to allow that to happen apart from a blind and impassionate belief in a completely free market. Fortunately those in Government dont agree with you or at least believe that the majority of their voters don't agree with you.

It is not a solution at all so I don't know how you read it as such.
It is merely restoring the market to it's normal functioning parametres.
It would benefit the vast majority of the society as they will have an accurate balance sheet with a true assessment of debt from which to plan for the future.

pawnacide · 30-03-2012 12:18pm

shangri la wrote: »

There are 30-50k houses/apts in danger of repossession. The rental market can take a fair amount of those and the houses in the middle of nowhere will have to be sold for under 50k or they will have to be knocked after another few years of neglect.

Why would the banks, from a business perspective, sell a house for 50k or rent it out when they could recieve more or the same from the current occupiers by simply writing down their mortgage. I dont think anyone here is arguing that those who pay nothing or aren't willing to at least pay their mortgage on the current value should be allowed to stay in their home.

pawnacide · 30-03-2012 12:26pm

Zamboni wrote: »

It is not a solution at all so I don't know how you read it as such.
It is merely restoring the market to it's normal functioning parametres.
It would benefit the vast majority of the society as they will have an accurate balance sheet with a true assessment of debt from which to plan for the future.

Write down the debt now and we will have the same true assessment of debt. By putting the houses on the market we would have to wait to see the sales figures, probably a few years before we could assess the debt. As for the balances still owed we would have to wait to see how many actually went for the bankruptcy option and how many actually repayed some or all of their debt. Unless you're advocating a write off of the balance of the mortgage over sale price.

So in fact if a true assessment of debt is the goal then immediate writedowns to sustainable levels would be the quickest avenue.

Zamboni · 30-03-2012 12:30pm

pawnacide wrote: »

Write down the debt now and we will have the same true assessment of debt. By putting the houses on the market we would have to wait to see the sales figures, probably a few years before we could assess the debt. As for the balances still owed we would have to wait to see how many actually went for the bankruptcy option and how many actually repayed some or all of their debt. Unless you're advocating a write off of the balance of the mortgage over sale price.

So in fact if a true assessment of debt is the goal then immediate writedowns to sustainable levels would be the quickest avenue.

Incorrect. Quickest but inaccurate.
Debt write down is managed by the banks who are now under the scope of the government.
Only the free market would provide the true reality of value and hence, debt.

pawnacide · 30-03-2012 12:36pm

Zamboni wrote: »

Incorrect. Quickest but inaccurate.
Debt write down is managed by the banks who are now under the scope of the government.
Only the free market would provide the true reality of value and hence, debt.

Sorry but that makes no sense, banks and other businesses assess their debts all the time without reference to the free market. From what u just said no bank, governement or business could ever assess their debt without selling of their assets on which the debt is held.

jmayo · 30-03-2012 1:30pm

daltonmd wrote: »

For the last time - we are already covering the banks losses, writedown of mortgage debt was included in the recapitilisation.

Now we are not.
The banks are at worse case scenario supposedly at the moment and as you point out the mortgage timebomb hasn't really hit.

daltonmd wrote: »

You, and others here like you cannot grasp the fact that you cannot get blood out of a stone - if we continue to push people in trouble, instead of writing down a portion of the debt - that is in line with the true value of their homes, then we will recoup nothing.

And you and others don't appear to grasp that you can't go on continously bailing out, in this case ordinary people, and that you can then expect other people to keep carrying the can for this.
Society will fall apart if you expect a few hundred thousand people to pay more taxes so another 50,000 thousand can sit in homes they can no longer afford whilst they are expected to cough up for their own.

daltonmd wrote: »

What's better? repayment of 175k out of 350k or nothing?

And do you think it is better that 175k is dumped on the taxpayers ?

daltonmd wrote: »

It's a solution for those who CANNOT repay.

Who decides who cannot pay and who can't be bothered paying ?

daltonmd wrote: »

So your take is - throw them out, recoup ZERO, have them on SW???

What are you on about ?
Being evicted does not equate to being unemployed ?

If they are evicted they can always, perish the thought, rent :eek::eek:
If they were working then they must have some money to put towards living accommodation.

daltonmd wrote: »

FFS - are you serious? Where was the financial prudence in AIB, BOI - ANGLO - two words for you jmay (I want to add that I also respect your posts - we agree on a lot but on this we'll have to disagree), BOND HOLDERS.

Adding to the disastrous decisions aint going to help.

daltonmd wrote: »

Look - my take on it is this:

The bondholders got a bailout.
The banks got a bailout - they also got a writedown on debt (NAMA).

It can't be one rule for a section of society and the rest have to suck it up.

These are not individuals even though some people think it.
These are institutions.
Well ok top bankers got to walk away free, but that is another matter should be a matter for authorities to sanction.

BTW with your idea, one section of society are supposed to suck it up once again.
Do you think taxpayers who were prudent should be screwed yet again ?
Because that is basically what you are advocating.

daltonmd wrote: »

The banks got the money - we, the taxpayer are already bailing them out - THEY should pass this on to hopeless cases.

So what should they pass onto those of us who saved, did not borrow much, and were careful ?
BTW the banks have not got the money, there is more earmarked for them but AFAIK has not actually been allocated as of yet.

BTW why should Ulster bank (First Active), ACC/Rabobank, NIB, ex Halifax/BofS do anything for their mortgage holders in trouble ?
After all these banks did not get bailouts from this state.

ballyharpat wrote: »

The banks are owned by the taxpayers-the Irish banks, it is our money, no I do not think we should be letting people live in their 3 bed houses if they cannot afford them, I want the money to stay in the banks to give them capital, once it's used to bail out those in arrears, that's it gone. Another point, what about banks outside of Ireland, Rabo, RBS etc. if they give writedowns, Who pays them?? or maybe just ppl that have a mortgage with Irish banks should get a writedown???

Exactly.
What do people expect non Irish owned non Irish bailed out banks to do ?
Do some of the advocates of this sh**e want the British, Dutch and Danish taxpayers to cough up for them ?

shangri la · 30-03-2012 1:32pm

Getting sick and tired of hearing people complain that the banks should not have lent so much money to them. They took the money! Bought a house with 1 or 2 bedrooms more than necessary. Remortgaged the house and blew 3k on a holiday? Bought a brand new car? Gambled on bank of ireland shares without knowing how to understand a balance sheet? E8 cocktails in temple bar? E4 cappuchinos in starbucks. Looking down on anyone who shopped in aldi and pennys. Which is your poison... Golf course fees or popping over to england for a match.

Time to get out of the house so the rest of us who didn't live like donald trump on borrowed money at large interest rates can buy it at a reasonable price.

You have to face the consequences of not planning ahead now. Yes, it is your fault. You chose to live your life that way. Every party ends sooner or later.

pawnacide · 30-03-2012 1:45pm

hmmmm .. ok, thanks for sharing.

Zamboni · 30-03-2012 2:14pm

pawnacide wrote: »

Sorry but that makes no sense, banks and other businesses assess their debts all the time without reference to the free market. From what u just said no bank, governement or business could ever assess their debt without selling of their assets on which the debt is held.

Independent valuers are brought in to establish the current market value (at variable intervals) to give a value on an asset that could be realised at the time.
Then those figures themselves will be audited in finacial statements.

Because Ireland does not really have an auditor for the balance sheet, we are fooling ourselves by overstating the value of the assets.

Also, can you not debate without the snidey comments?
It is fine to have a different view of a subject without the need or urge to insult them. Give it a try

Zamboni · 30-03-2012 2:29pm

jmayo wrote: »

BTW why should Ulster bank (First Active), ACC/Rabobank, NIB, ex Halifax/BofS do anything for their mortgage holders in trouble ?
After all these banks did not get bailouts from this state.

It's a fair point.
This presents a thorn in the side for any write down of mortage debt in this country by State Owned banks.

Basically, if you were lucky enough to go with AIB for a mortgage, ah sure you're grand.
But if you were with NIB you're out on the street.
How the hell could we reconcile that?

Again the only answer is to allow normal processes apply to everybody.

daltonmd · 30-03-2012 7:06pm

jmayo wrote: »

Now we are not.
The banks are at worse case scenario supposedly at the moment and as you point out the mortgage timebomb hasn't really hit.

Yes we are:http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2011/08/22/lack-of-debt-forgiveness-not-realistic/

"For those who say that they don’t think that their money should be used to help write down other people’s mortgage debt, there’s bad news and good news. The bad news is that it’s already happened. The taxpayer injections from the NPRF are covering mortgage debts that won’t be paid back. The good news is also that it’s already happened, i.e. implementing a debt relief programme won’t involve any additional costs to taxpayers over and above those already announced.
What this means is that the banks are sitting on mortgage losses that will be around €6 billion even if the economy recovers in line with the government’s projections. This €6 billion represents debt that simply will not be paid back and taxpayer funds have already been injected to cover these losses. At present, however, the banks are preferring to write these losses off as slowly as possible. But whether the day of writing down is put off some more or whether the banks actively engage in a write-down programme, these losses are being incurred."

jmayo wrote: »

And you and others don't appear to grasp that you can't go on continously bailing out, in this case ordinary people, and that you can then expect other people to keep carrying the can for this.
Society will fall apart if you expect a few hundred thousand people to pay more taxes so another 50,000 thousand can sit in homes they can no longer afford whilst they are expected to cough up for their own.

And you and others don't appear to grasp how serious this problem is and that going down the road of mass repossessions will have a detrimental effect of the entire banking system. You also don't seem to grasp the fact that we already carrying the can for this - the banks refusal to write down these unsustainable mortgages will end up costing us more in the long run.

As to your 50k - I'd say you are wildly optimistic.

jmayo wrote: »

And do you think it is better that 175k is dumped on the taxpayers ?

It's already been dumped on the taxpayer as I have clearly shown above. Going down the repossession route will mean that the taxpayer will foot more of the bill not less.

You have someone in a home that was 350k - let's say they bought in 2006, they put 30k down as a deposit and the o/s mortgage is now approx 275k, they have already paid 75k - writing the mortgage down to 175k (todays market price) now means that the total recouped will be 250k (plus interest).

Your way means that they will still have paid 75k - but if the house is repossessed (and there will be 1000's repossessed, meaning huge falls in prices) the bank will be lucky to get 100k - so it's 175k recouped your way? Or it's 250k (plus interest) my way - without it costing the taxpayer anymore.

jmayo wrote: »

Who decides who cannot pay and who can't be bothered paying ?

"A well-designed programme needs to deal with mortgages on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, this can involve modifications of mortgages in bilateral deals between banks and their customers. In some cases, those who get modified mortgages will get to stay in their homes. In other cases, they will not."

jmayo wrote: »

What are you on about ?
Being evicted does not equate to being unemployed ?

Who said it did? I said your take is to throw them out, recoup nothing and if they have to go on SW then it's more pressure on the system.

I

jmayo wrote: »

f they are evicted they can always, perish the thought, rent :eek::eek:
If they were working then they must have some money to put towards living accommodation.

Yes they were paying what they could off an unsustainable debt, your way is to take their homes and put them in the rental market - which will raise demand and rents will increase - you seem to think in a singlar fashion - we are not talking about a couple of hundred people - we are talking about 10's of 1000's.

We all agree that NAMA is witholding property and if they release it then house prices will fall - do you disagree that this won't happen if the banks do it? ANd if prices fall then the banks recoup LESS. Ok, it'll be great for people who want to buy - but where will they get the mortgages? Off the banks - ooops sorry they now have a huge hole to fill, because instead of recoping over 2/3rds of the debt they are getting at best half.

This isn't about moral hazzard, this isn't about punisheing people - this is about getting as much of the debt back as possible.

People keep going on about why should people stay in homes that they can't afford - yet accept that the homes are worth 50% less - so they actually can afford them but the banks who have already received money from the taxpayer to take these losses are squeezing people dry.

One in five mortgages are in arrears, the average arrears are 20k. There's been a 12% rise this year alone.

The next 3 budgets are going to be severe, pushing more and more people into arrears. 3.5 billion next year, 2.8 billion the year after and in 2014 I beleive it's going to be a dinger.

This situation could be solved easliy now, without any extra cost to the taxpayer.

But no - we'll arse it up as per usual - we have to stop thinking about one side of the equasion and look at the bigger picture.

daltonmd · 30-03-2012 7:21pm

Zamboni wrote: »

It's a fair point.
This presents a thorn in the side for any write down of mortage debt in this country by State Owned banks.

Basically, if you were lucky enough to go with AIB for a mortgage, ah sure you're grand.
But if you were with NIB you're out on the street.
How the hell could we reconcile that?

Again the only answer is to allow normal processes apply to everybody.

Not quite - BOSI started writing down BTL mortgages last year. You're probably luckier if you're with a non state owned bank.

jmayo · 02-04-2012 9:50am

daltonmd wrote: »

Not quite - BOSI started writing down BTL mortgages last year. You're probably luckier if you're with a non state owned bank.

I would not bet on that.
ACC/Rabobank and NIB have been the toughest and the ones most in the news for chasing people for debts, especially the developers/investors.

In all your above usual answer to my post you did not answer this elephant in the room.
How could the Irish government force a non Irish owned bank (i.e. not one beholden to the Irish taxpayers) to give mortgage writedowns to their defaulters ?

The answer is they really can't and if they attempt some muscle by the CB/IFSRA, who don't even fully regulate these companies, it could mean wholesale exit of foreign financial institutions from this jurisdiction.

daltonmd · 02-04-2012 10:48am

jmayo wrote: »

I would not bet on that.
ACC/Rabobank and NIB have been the toughest and the ones most in the news for chasing people for debts, especially the developers/investors.

Are we seeing mass repossessions in the courts from these banks? As I said - BOSI startd writing down BTL mortgage debt last year.

jmayo wrote: »

In all your above usual answer to my post you did not answer this elephant in the room.
How could the Irish government force a non Irish owned bank (i.e. not one beholden to the Irish taxpayers) to give mortgage writedowns to their defaulters ?

And as per usual you branch out into a different issue instead of commenting on the link I provided, where it clearly shows that the recap of the banks included provision to cover the losses, whereas you stated they didn't.

Also - your gripe if I am correct, is the use of taxpayers money to bailout mortgage holders - what's it to you what non state owned banks do?

jmayo wrote: »

The answer is they really can't and if they attempt some muscle by the CB/IFSRA, who don't even fully regulate these companies, it could mean wholesale exit of foreign financial institutions from this jurisdiction.

It's not your business - it's not the tax payers business - we are talking about state owned banks, that have been provided with assistance from the taxpayer - deal with that please.

riclad · 02-04-2012 1:27pm

Say someone bought a house for 300 k ,now worth 150k, would it now not be better to negotiate with them if they are in financial difficulty and reduce the mortgage to 200k which they could afford.Rather than throw them out, and sell the house for 140k, ie by the time the legal process goes through ,the house is worth 130 or 140 , prices are still going down by ten percent or more per year.
I think most people in difficulty are going to interest only payments,or else
are getting help from welfare to pay, Banks are going for repossession
if payments are gone to zero or the house has been abandoned.
IF you read the papers the regulator has told the banks to take action ,speed up repossession against non paying investors, landlords
who are in ne and are having difficulty paying the mortgage.
I wonder should the welfare be helping someone pay a 300k loan on a house thats worth 150k.
Their should be some scheme to reduce the capital amount owed
if you have lost your job.

daltonmd · 02-04-2012 1:31pm

riclad wrote: »

Say someone bought a house for 300 k ,now worth 150k, would it now not be better to negotiate with them if they are in financial difficulty and reduce the mortgage to 200k which they could afford.Rather than throw them out, and sell the house for 140k, ie by the time the legal process goes through ,the house is worth 130 or 140 , prices are still going down by ten percent or more per year.
I think most people in difficulty are going to interest only payments,or else
are getting help from welfare to pay, Banks are going for repossession
if payments are gone to zero or the house has been abandoned.
IF you read the papers the regulator has told the banks to take action ,speed up repossession against non paying investors, landlords
who are in ne and are having difficulty paying the mortgage.
I wonder should the welfare be helping someone pay a 300k loan on a house thats worth 150k.
Their should be some scheme to reduce the capital amount owed
if you have lost your job.

It's about getting back what you can, cutting loose the real unsustainable debtors and dealing with the problem, you make good points - ones I've been trying to make here.

We'll spend so much money and time trying to avoid the unavoidable - we'll act too late unfortunately.

pawnacide · 02-04-2012 4:12pm

Zamboni wrote: »

Also, can you not debate without the snidey comments?
It is fine to have a different view of a subject without the need or urge to insult them. Give it a try

Snidey comments ?? more of a silly reply to a rant than a snidey comment, Besides so called 'snidey comments' are often used in deabates to emphasise the hoplessness of an untenable position.

pawnacide · 02-04-2012 4:22pm

Zamboni wrote: »

Independent valuers are brought in to establish the current market value (at variable intervals) to give a value on an asset that could be realised at the time.
Then those figures themselves will be audited in finacial statements.

Because Ireland does not really have an auditor for the balance sheet, we are fooling ourselves by overstating the value of the assets.

Also, can you not debate without the snidey comments?
It is fine to have a different view of a subject without the need or urge to insult them. Give it a try

Banks and ireland has no auditors ??? It's a very simple process to establish 'market value' or at least something close to it. I agree banks assets are most likely hugely over valued, but thats easy to rectify if there's a will to do so but that will must come from government as if left to the banks it wont happen.

pawnacide · 02-04-2012 4:39pm

jmayo wrote: »

Exactly.
What do people expect non Irish owned non Irish bailed out banks to do ?
Do some of the advocates of this sh**e want the British, Dutch and Danish taxpayers to cough up for them ?

Banks are in business to make money if a bank can make more money from selling a house, they will repossess and sell it. If a bank can make more money from writing down debt then it will write down the debt. The point was made previously that repossession figures are far higher in the Uk coz there's no government interference in the workings of the free market. But this is not comapring like with like. The foreign banks that repossess cannot sell the houses and even the subprime lenders are starting to deal with mortgage holders. Apart from the social arguments against mass repossessions there are very real and financially responsible arguments for writing down debt. IT"S GONNA HAPPEN sooner or later so probably best to get used to the idea.

Those controlling the write downs will not be the socially consciensous but rather the financially prudent with both eyes firmly fixed on profit and the balance sheet, therefore the suggestion that writedowns will be a blanket get of penury card for the financially imprudent is false and I dont think anyone here is arguing that it should be.

smallerthanyou · 19-04-2012 11:31am

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elderly-couple-evicted-from-home-on-millionaires-row-3085588.html

What does everyone think about this? I think it looks like they are starting repossessions by going for the people first that noone has sympathy for and then guaging opinion from there. I think repossessions in completely unsustainable cases are coming. This case was completely unsustainable so they had to go.

robd · 19-04-2012 12:38pm

smallerthanyou wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elderly-couple-evicted-from-home-on-millionaires-row-3085588.html

What does everyone think about this? I think it looks like they are starting repossessions by going for the people first that noone has sympathy for and then guaging opinion from there. I think repossessions in completely unsustainable cases are coming. This case was completely unsustainable so they had to go.

The comments on the article are interesting. Have been following the comments on http://www.facebook.com/tigerrebornireland also.

Seems one extreme to the other. Lots of people ignore that this was a luxury house and just take the angle of the bad banks/gardai/government.

They appeared to be chancing their arm completely. Court orders for repossession granted 2 years ago. Other properties all leased. They'd ample time to come to an amenable arrangement which clearly didn't. This is defo a story with 2 sides and we're only hearing their side at present.

Personally I think it shows that we need to better define what a family home is and seek to protect that. i.e. A family home being an amount equal to the average 3 bed semi-d which the bank shouldn't be able to repossess. In the case of luxury homes your stake up to the equiv value should probably be protected.

Going forward I truly believe legislation should be brought in making all mortgages non recourse. Would make the banks more responsible. Interest rates would be higher put better piece of mind and sustainability all round. Also, higher interest rates would make property cheaper so should work out roughly the same monthly cost to person buying.

The_Honeybadger · 19-04-2012 12:47pm

smallerthanyou wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elderly-couple-evicted-from-home-on-millionaires-row-3085588.html

What does everyone think about this? I think it looks like they are starting repossessions by going for the people first that noone has sympathy for and then guaging opinion from there. I think repossessions in completely unsustainable cases are coming. This case was completely unsustainable so they had to go.

Chancers hoping to piggyback on the negative sentiment towards banks. They own 10 other properties and live in a multi million euro home which they couldn't pay for, what did they expect. The bank gave them two years to sort themselves before calling in the bailiffs so no sympathy here. If they were a young family being evicted from a 3 bed semi without an extensive property portfolio to fall back on then I'd be outraged but this case is at the other end of the spectrum altogether.

who_ru · 19-04-2012 1:49pm

how many other properties have they got? and they were given notice 2 years ago.

i personally couldn't even imagine taking out a mortgage of 100,000 euro now aged 39. but this guy takes out a 2 million euro mortgage aged 69. For god's sake people need to live up to their responsibilities, it's always somebody else's fault in this country.

they are very comfortable, many other properties to fall back on.

Caribs · 19-04-2012 3:14pm

who_ru wrote: »

how many other properties have they got? and they were given notice 2 years ago.

i personally couldn't even imagine taking out a mortgage of 100,000 euro now aged 39. but this guy takes out a 2 million euro mortgage aged 69. For god's sake people need to live up to their responsibilities, it's always somebody else's fault in this country.

they are very comfortable, many other properties to fall back on.

Without having full visibility of the background I have to agree with the sentiment of questioning the logic of people taking out such a huge mortgage regardless of age. Aside from whether or not they are comfortable people do need to face up to their responsibilities and if they were not in a position to meet with repayments then the bank has the right to repossess. That is the hazard anyone with a mortgage takes. It doesn't sound like the banks were hasty in arriving at this decision. The banks are not exactly flavour of the month but think they are in the right in this instance.

daviddwyer · 19-04-2012 3:30pm

Havent read the thread but how in the name of god did a bank lend to this man in 2004... he would have been 64 years old. i thought all mortgages had to be paid in full by age 65. If this man had been a developer Nama would have came in and bailed him out.... different stokes for different folks?

who_ru · 19-04-2012 9:14pm

daviddwyer wrote: »

Havent read the thread but how in the name of god did a bank lend to this man in 2004... he would have been 64 years old. i thought all mortgages had to be paid in full by age 65. If this man had been a developer Nama would have came in and bailed him out.... different stokes for different folks?

NAMA took bad & good property loans off the books of nationalised banks, this was done to allow those banks to lend money into the economy. you can of course argue that no such thing has happened, Brian Lenihan told us that developers would be chased to the ends of the earth in pursuit of those bad loans. you can again argue that this hasn't happened.

but the fact that some bank loaned this guy the money, which he voluntarily applied for, took the money and bought this property and subsequently couldn't repay is without doubt. he was given notice 2 years ago, he has had 2 years in this house without repayment, he could of organised his affairs, avoided all this publicity but he chose not to. he wanted this outcome it seems to me in order to engineer sympathy.

Snakeblood · 19-04-2012 10:00pm

who_ru wrote: »

NAMA took bad & good property loans off the books of nationalised banks, this was done to allow those banks to lend money into the economy. you can of course argue that no such thing has happened, Brian Lenihan told us that developers would be chased to the ends of the earth in pursuit of those bad loans. you can again argue that this hasn't happened.

but the fact that some bank loaned this guy the money, which he voluntarily applied for, took the money and bought this property and subsequently couldn't repay is without doubt. he was given notice 2 years ago, he has had 2 years in this house without repayment, he could of organised his affairs, avoided all this publicity but he chose not to. he wanted this outcome it seems to me in order to engineer sympathy.

He's had more than 2 years. Banks don't serve notice on someone unless they stop paying, and stop paying for a while. He's engendered a lot more disgust than sympathy.

votecounts · 19-04-2012 10:15pm

this guy and his wife deserve no sympathy and if the sale of the house does not meet the balance on the mortgage,they should be forced to sell their other houses to make this up. Another example of people wanting the tax payer to give them a free house.
BTW, developers, sean quinn, sean fitzpatrick, etc should be given the same treatment. This will not happen as Fine Gael and Labour won't do anything, not surprising as Olivia Mitchell got a corrupt payment and is still a member of FG.

votecounts · 19-04-2012 10:17pm

who_ru wrote: »

NAMA took bad & good property loans off the books of nationalised banks, this was done to allow those banks to lend money into the economy. you can of course argue that no such thing has happened, Brian Lenihan told us that developers would be chased to the ends of the earth in pursuit of those bad loans. you can again argue that this hasn't happened.

but the fact that some bank loaned this guy the money, which he voluntarily applied for, took the money and bought this property and subsequently couldn't repay is without doubt. he was given notice 2 years ago, he has had 2 years in this house without repayment, he could of organised his affairs, avoided all this publicity but he chose not to. he wanted this outcome it seems to me in order to engineer sympathy.

You believed that lying piece of xxxx

riclad · 20-04-2012 12:25am

I have no sympathy for someone who bought a 2million euro house then just stayed there when they could not pay the mortgage,this cant be compared with the average couple in a 3bed semi d who are in negative equity.
ON the radio he sounded like he,s got various other propertys which are rented out ,maybe with loans from
other banks . th
HE must have been doing well to borrow 2million .I
think there ,ll be alot of info in the papers in the next week re his assets, and financial situation.

Zamboni · 20-04-2012 9:51am

Repossession order two years ago.

You would think he might have not have renewed a lease on one of his other properties in the meantime and moved in there.

Zero sympathy.

May there be many more to follow.

Snakeblood · 20-04-2012 10:27am

riclad wrote: »

I have no sympathy for someone who bought a 2million euro house then just stayed there when they could not pay the mortgage,this cant be compared with the average couple in a 3bed semi d who are in negative equity.
ON the radio he sounded like he,s got various other propertys which are rented out ,maybe with loans from
other banks . th
HE must have been doing well to borrow 2million .I
think there ,ll be alot of info in the papers in the next week re his assets, and financial situation.

He's got 21 other properties.

robd · 20-04-2012 5:09pm

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/eviction-help-not-for-landlords-3087669.html

Fairly reasonable response by Michael Noonan.

Legislation will protect struggling home owners not professional landlords with 21 properties.

Specifically he commented "We must distinguish between people who can't pay and people who won't pay", which I think is a fare comment. It's obvious they refused to deal with this matter and seem of the opinion that they were entitled to not have their home repossessed.

Also, he seems like exactly the kind of guy you wouldn't want as a landlord. Can only imagine trying to get a deposit back after giving notice and following correct procedure for vacating one of his rented properties. Met his type before.

Zamboni · 20-04-2012 5:34pm

robd wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/eviction-help-not-for-landlords-3087669.html

Fairly reasonable response by Michael Noonan.

Legislation will protect struggling home owners not professional landlords with 21 properties.

Specifically he commented "We must distinguish between people who can't pay and people who won't pay", which I think is a fare comment. It's obvious they refused to deal with this matter and seem of the opinion that they were entitled to not have their home repossessed.

Also, he seems like exactly the kind of guy you wouldn't want as a landlord. Can only imagine trying to get a deposit back after giving notice and following correct procedure for vacating one of his rented properties. Met his type before.

Meanwhile, Occupy Dame Street members have travelled to the Killiney mansion to pledge support for the Kellys. Campaigner John Rogers said the couple was removed from the property with brutal force, which was unacceptable.

"It doesn't matter how many properties they have in their portfolio," said Mr Rogers. "They are in negative equity like much of the country and the bank should have given them a chance to make smaller payments or come to some kind of arrangement. But to drag an old man from his home kicking and screaming is not right. If anyone in this country doesn't see that then they mustn't have a heart."

This bit made me laugh out loud!
John Rogers is a complete clown with his priorities arseways.
Guys like Brendan Kelly are very much part of what caused the issues we now have. And for idiotic unresearched fools from Occupy Dame Street to support him is utterly bizarre!
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Monty Burnz · 20-04-2012 5:39pm

"Brutal force"? Ridiculous. The old man repeatedly runs at the bailiffs, shouting a them to 'get away'. They finally get a hold of him and walk him off the property. Where was the brutality exactly? If anything, he was assaulting the men who were trying to stop him trespassing.

The Occupy crowd have lost a massive amount of credibility by getting themselves involved with this latest stunt.

cyberblade 918c · 20-04-2012 7:10pm

Zamboni wrote: »

Repossession order two years ago.

You would think he might have not have renewed a lease on one of his other properties in the meantime and moved in there.

Zero sympathy.

May there be many more to follow.

A man of his caliber in a normal house in a normal street ?? tut tut tut - he couldnt have that now !! - this couple have never known what it is like to go hungry or too see their kids go with out the basic essentials that people like this take for granted. No sympthy what so ever for them. wonder what car he drives. Probably parked the jag elsewhere for a few days while the media were awaiting the bailifs !!

shangri la · 21-04-2012 1:51am

They protested against an eviction of a couple who have at least 19 properties and were given 2 years notice!

What the hell were they thinking!

Good move by the bank to start with the folks in the mansions so they can't be accused of picking on the poor young family with the new baby.

how many properties would you guess will be repossed this year?

bjak · 22-04-2012 9:54am

The issue is really downplayed in todays Sindo who have been cheerleading the whole debt writeoff / forebearance bandwagon - I can only see one article "Evicted couple 'upset' at Ministers' comments"

Obviously the case doesn't suit their agenda any more

Repossessions

Comments