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

Repossessions

13468915

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭ballyharpat


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    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?


    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?
    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?
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭ballyharpat


    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???




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭ballyharpat


    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....


  • Registered Users Posts: 952 ✭✭✭shangri la


    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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭pawnacide


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 952 ✭✭✭shangri la


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭pawnacide


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭pawnacide


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭pawnacide


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭pawnacide


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    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.

    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 ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 952 ✭✭✭shangri la


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭pawnacide


    hmmmm .. ok, thanks for sharing.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    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 :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭pawnacide


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭pawnacide


    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.


Advertisement