[pawnacide]

Originally Posted by Zamboni

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]

Originally Posted by pawnacide

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]

Originally Posted by Zamboni

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]

Originally Posted by daltonmd

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.

Originally Posted by daltonmd

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.

Originally Posted by daltonmd

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 ?

Originally Posted by daltonmd

It's a solution for those who CANNOT repay.

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

Originally Posted by daltonmd

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
If they were working then they must have some money to put towards living accommodation.

Originally Posted by daltonmd

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.

Originally Posted by daltonmd

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.

Originally Posted by daltonmd

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.

Originally Posted by ballyharpat

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]

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]

hmmmm .. ok, thanks for sharing.

[Zamboni]

Originally Posted by pawnacide

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]

Originally Posted by jmayo

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]

Originally Posted by jmayo

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...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."

Originally Posted by jmayo

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.

Originally Posted by jmayo

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.

Originally Posted by jmayo

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."

Originally Posted by jmayo

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

Originally Posted by jmayo

f they are evicted they can always, perish the thought, rent
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]

Originally Posted by Zamboni

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]

Originally Posted by daltonmd

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]

Originally Posted by jmayo

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.

Originally Posted by jmayo

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?

Originally Posted by jmayo

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Zamboni

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.