Media: CSO reports property prices continue to drop, and falls in prices accelerating

user1842

Hold on can we not also blame the stupid ass ECB and European banks that lent to us in the first place without doing due diligence.

Why should they get of the hook. They were as stupid as us.

antiskeptic

smccarrick wrote: »

Use the repossessed homes towards this end- however give people who aren't in default on their mortgages, the option to purchase the repossessed properties- by means of a property swap (with a cash topup as necessary). That way- you are rewarding the virtue of their financial prudence- while still ensuring that the person getting turfed out, has a roof over their heads (though not their original roof, and not a property of their choosing)

By financially prudent, I'm taking you mean people who are in negative equity/struggling to meet their mortgage (but who are still doing so) a way to escape the burden. They effectively downgrade their house to something more affordable and their n/eq debt is written off?

But the difference between them and the person next door who is in arrears (and who is to be turfed out and given a roof over their head) could be something as arbitrary as job loss.

There was no difference between them in the financial prudence stakes.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Zamboni

antiskeptic wrote: »

By financially prudent, I'm taking you mean people who are in negative equity/struggling to meet their mortgage (but who are still doing so) a way to escape the burden. They effectively downgrade their house to something more affordable and their n/eq debt is written off?

But the difference between them and the person next door who is in arrears (and who is to be turfed out and given a roof over their head) could be something as arbitrary as job loss.

There was no difference between them in the financial prudence stakes.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Even leaving the financial prudence aside, why would a person who can not afford something get to keep it?

antiskeptic

meglome wrote: »

No matter how many times someone told me there would be none. We all have basic maths skills, it didn't take a genius to figure out something was very wrong.

Maths skills don't tell you that the worlds financial system is built on air. And that when it crashes it will cost you your job. If they did then a lot of people with excellent maths skills wouldn't have been burnt the world over.

The problem for most isn't the price they paid for their house, it's the fact the tide went out carrying their jobs with it. I bought in 1999 and will in all likelyhood end up in negative equity before long. Negative equity itself doesn't make any difference - it's ability to pay your mortgage that makes the difference.

We voted for people, repeatedly, that carried on with a high spend low tax model. These policies didn't make sense in the long run. We as a people had never held our politicians accountable for anything. So when politicians (or bankers) are not held accountable they have no incentive to do the right thing, they do the easy thing. All of this shíte we're in stems from that inability to hold people properly to account... ever. We may not all have borrowed too much money, we may not all have believed the hype but we (mostly) all didn't care enough about who we elected.

Which is why I asked responsibility to be assigned to ALL involved. The government, the electorate, the banks, the media, the international banks and their investors, the householders who paid too much..

How would YOU assign who owns what portion of the responsibility ... and thus, debt?

antiskeptic

Zamboni wrote: »

Even leaving the financial prudence aside, why would a person who can not afford something get to keep it?

I'm not saying they should keep it. I'm saying that the total debt need be divided up amongst the parties responsible for creating that debt. The houseowner is but one party.

The_Conductor

I had more in mind the person who bought an apartment, and is still paying their mortgage without issue- but has had children, and is now in unsuitable accommodation- but unable to move- as their is no market to speak of, into which they can buy/sell property........

If property prices have fallen by half since the peak- under normal borrowing conditions- virtually everything post 1998 is in negative equity- irrespective of the record of the borrower.......

Yes- the difference between two households could be a job loss versus- no job loss- but then there are people who took much lower paying jobs in the civil service and elsewhere- in recognition that they were paying a price for the job security (not that there is job security anywhere anymore).

Some people sat down- and worked through the possibilities and then went and borrowed within their means. Others- decided to borrow as much as they possibly could, and if there were consequences- they'd cross that bridge when they came to it.

Just because you could borrow 600k- doesn't mean you had to- or that it was a good idea to. You neighbour who decided on reflection that he couldn't afford to borrow 600k- and is in an apartment with 3 kids- irrespective of whether they're in negative equity or not- should have first dibs on your property that you secured with a loan you have no manner of repaying......?

meglome

antiskeptic wrote: »

Maths skills don't tell you that the worlds financial system is built on air. And that when it crashes it will cost you your job. If they did then a lot of people with excellent maths skills wouldn't have been burnt the world over.

No they don't... but it's very safe to say even without the world financial crisis we wouldn't be looking too good financially. It's one thing losing your job and quite another thing losing your job after you've borrowed way more than made any sense.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The problem for most isn't the price they paid for their house, it's the fact the tide went out carrying their jobs with it. I bought in 1999 and will in all likelyhood end up in negative equity before long. Negative equity itself doesn't make any difference - it's ability to pay your mortgage that makes the difference.

The problem has been made worse by people losing their jobs. The big problem is people borrowed way too much, they borrowed using 100% mortgages, they borrowed large multiples of their salary etc. etc.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is why I asked responsibility to be assigned to ALL involved. The government, the electorate, the banks, the media, the international banks and their investors, the householders who paid too much..

How would YOU assign who owns what portion of the responsibility ... and thus, debt?

Well it's obvious to me we're all to blame, I'm just advocating people taking personal responsibility for their part. But one thing I am strongly saying is we accepted a system that led us directly to where we are now. We elected people who we knew were corrupt. Were people actually surprised that FF made some horrible decisions in 2008. As far as I recall the only way they knew how to deal with anything was to throw money at it. That blanket bank guarantee was a car crash in slow motion.

We as individuals supported the system, we as individuals elected those in charge (repeatedly), we as individuals hold major responsibility. Doesn't mean though I wouldn't like to see some bankers or politicians in jail.

up4it

It seems to me that a lot of people bought property as an investment rather than just somewhere to live.

Icepick

dmclean1842 wrote: »

the stupid ass ECB and European banks that lent to us in the first place

Source?

ShadowHearth

up4it wrote: »

It seems to me that a lot of people bought property as an investment rather than just somewhere to live.

100% right.

people were just greedy. so many companies were greedy too.

everyone just wanted to make good few thousands on theyr properties. it was a mass "sitting on a pot of gold" mentality.

you can even see it now, when people are plain saying not to buy, not even interested in individual cases! As they just see that you cant make money on it, just losse. so first thing in mind is resale and property going up, not making property your permenant home.

car is not investment

house is not investment

its luxury.

user1842

Icepick wrote: »

Source?

"
Proinsias de Rossa has revealed in the European Parliament that Irish banks now owe 500 billion euro to european banks. 300 billion to German and UK banks, and 200 billion to banks in other EU countries.
"

The_Conductor

dmclean1842 wrote: »

"
Proinsias de Rossa has revealed in the European Parliament that Irish banks now owe 500 billion euro to european banks. 300 billion to German and UK banks, and 200 billion to banks in other EU countries.
"

What does this have to do with

Originally Posted by dmclean1842:
the stupid ass ECB and European banks that lent to us in the first place

What Proinsias de Rossa was referring to was the interbank lending market- which is common place lending between financial institutions- and has been since Victorian times. Sure Irish banks borrowed over 500 billion from EU financial institutions- however they also simultaneously lent over 300 billion...... When this source of liquidity froze for Irish institutions- all hell broke loose- as their next source of borrowing was the ECB and the Irish Central Bank- and both of these institutions demanded collateral- which is where the self-issued bearer bonds with an Irish government guarantee came into being. Pretty handy- allowing the banks print IOUs that the Irish government guaranteed to honour. Unfortunately- the Irish guarantee was called on- and as we all know- the Irish government finances are rocky at best........

So- loads of European banks lent our banks money. We in turn lent money elsewhere. The ECB had an effective zero rate on over night funds (the 1% rate being above the prevailing rate of inflation)- so if there is any baddie in this story- its the ECB with a wholly inappropriate rate of interest which encouraged people to spend- a- because money was cheap as chips and b-because they certainly weren't going to keep the value of their money by saving it.........

The big problem was a one-size-fits-all approach to economic matters. Low interest rates suited the French/Germans/Belgians and a few others. They certainly didn't suit us, the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Dutch, the Danish- and a myriad of others. However- we are minnows to the French and German sharks- and our little peeps- even concerted peeps- meant nothing to the economic behemoths to whom we are now beholden........

Aprilmay

up4it wrote: »

It seems to me that a lot of people bought property as an investment rather than just somewhere to live.

Don't forget the holiday home aboard! I know a few people who did this