[jmayo]

Originally Posted by Bullseye1

I'd love if people did not buy repossessed houses. The banks are getting away Scott free. They were the professionals giving out mortgages to people who should never have been given them in the first place.

And how in Gods name were Bank of Scotland allowed to up sticks and leave the market so easily. It was those bastards who first introduces the 110% mortgages.

It these banks had not been nationalised those people who are happy to allow people drown in debt for the rest of their lives might be whistling a different tune.

AFAIK it is not against forum rules to state a post is complete bullsh**.

BTW I think basic economics and budgeting should be compulsory subjects in school upto junior cert and unless people got an C or better in it they should never be lent a penny or cent in their lifetime.

Originally Posted by Bullseye1

My understanding from those economists looking for debt forgiveness is that those who are currently under so much debt are not spending and are unlikely to spend in the medium term. This will in turn hurt those companies and professionals offering services. By reducing their debt it allows them to inturn start spending again and employing the services of professionals. So while we may pay more taxes it would be offset by an increase in business.

Did it ever cross your mind that the ones ultimately paying for this will have less disposabole income to spend?
It used to be called robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Originally Posted by Doc Ruby

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.

Doc away with you and your sensible opinions.
Don't you know the majic money tree will pay for it all.

[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.

[smccarrick]

Originally Posted by Doc Ruby

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........?

[arbitrage]

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

[Monty Burnz]

Originally Posted by arbitrage

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.

[Villa05]

Originally Posted by arbitrage

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

[thewing]

http://ibf.ie/Libraries/Research_Sta...2012.sflb.ashx

[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/dav...-business.html

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

[smccarrick]

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.

[Milk & Honey]

Originally Posted by smccarrick

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.

[Monty Burnz]

Originally Posted by Milk & Honey

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.

[Zamboni]

Originally Posted by Milk & Honey

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.

[smccarrick]

Originally Posted by Milk & Honey

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.

Originally Posted by Milk & Honey

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.

Originally Posted by Milk & Honey

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.

Originally Posted by Milk & Honey

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.

Originally Posted by Milk & Honey

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......???

[Milk & Honey]

Originally Posted by smccarrick

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.

Originally Posted by smccarrick

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.

Originally Posted by smccarrick

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.

Originally Posted by smccarrick

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?

Originally Posted by smccarrick

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.

[Monty Burnz]

Originally Posted by Milk & Honey

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?