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

Mortgage write offs for all, silly billies to have debt written off

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    jackal wrote: »
    Does that mean we should tear up any contracts made before the new government came in?

    I really don't see your point here? You complained about the old government even though they've been f*cked out and now you're throwing around silly comments.


  • Options
    #33
    theg81der
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭theg81der


    Yea I still don`t understand when people signed a document for 25 or 30 years for god knows how much thought they were fecking doing!!! So everyone is stupid bankers and loads of people and who pays? everybody! All I get from this is your better off being stupid in this country. Stupid but obviously not the kind of idiot I was - silly me working 2 jobs during the boom and paying off my morgage before things got bad.....so got that people responsible=stupid but paying anyway for everyone else.

    Seriously thinking about leaving this dump.


  • Options
    #34
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    theg81der wrote: »
    Yea I still don`t understand when people signed a document for 25 or 30 years for god knows how much thought they were fecking doing!!!

    Well they'll be the same people who in 25/30 years will have no mortgage on the house they live in while you're paying through the nose for rent somewhere. And when they retire they'll still have a house where as you might have to downgrade to a 1 bed apartment or a state run home because your pension is too small to cover rent anywhere decent. That's the logic in it!

    they'll also have an asset to hand down to their children.


  • Options
    #35
    Sea Sharp
    Registered Users Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭Sea Sharp


    This scheme has the potential to work. The bank now owns the house but there's no saying it will be able to sell the house in the next seven years. Probably what will happen is that you hand over your house to the banks and get to live there paying means tested rent for the next seven years.


  • Options
    #36
    theg81der
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭theg81der


    smash wrote: »
    Well they'll be the same people who in 25/30 years will have no mortgage on the house they live in while you're paying through the nose for rent somewhere. And when they retire they'll still have a house where as you might have to downgrade to a 1 bed apartment or a state run home because your pension is too small to cover rent anywhere decent. That's the logic in it!

    they'll also have an asset to hand down to their children.

    Lol you didn`t read my post did you?lol I have my morgage completely paid - ok my house is modest but I own it and I worked damn hard for it when there was money to be made.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    ronan45
    Registered Users Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭ronan45


    My colleague who bought 4 buy to let apartments from 05-07 is well chuffed with the news.
    Jebus isnt Ireland great, you take a gamble and get stung for your greed and the Wee old Irish Bail ya out!.

    He sends his regards to all ye :D from the O Connell Street taxi Rank lmfao Business is slow today


  • Options
    #38
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 23,985 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    ronan45 wrote: »
    My colleague who bought 4 buy to let apartments from 05-07 is well chuffed with the news.
    Jebus isnt Ireland great, you take a gamble and get stung for your greed and the Wee old Irish Bail ya out!.

    He sends his regards to all ye :D

    Is he certain that buy to lets are included in the scheme? If not, he'd better lock his tenants in so they can't move somewhere else.


  • Options
    #39
    Stiffler2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,536 ✭✭✭Stiffler2


    So let me get this right.
    the bank takes your house from you, and then expect you to continue paying the mortgage for 7 years afterwards.

    LOL - am I missing something here ?

    IF I lost my house and the bank took it off me the first thing I would do is obvioulsy stop paying back the loan.

    This obvioulsy means you could never borrow or get a mortgage again but F**K that, I'd rent for the rest of my life and keep my 7 years worth of mortgage payments thank you very much

    twats


  • Options
    #40
    stovelid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Free gravy train? The banks will own their house which can be sold out from under them - pushing people who genuinely can no longer afford their mortgage and can't sell their homes into paying both rent and repayments for up to seven years...I'd imagine they'd also then be blacklisted.

    Not exactly a magical fairy wipe-the-slate-clean write-off.

    Get with the programme.

    Splenetic bullsh*t is what's required. Take your reasonable questions to a posh forum.


  • Options
    #41
    Rabidlamb
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭Rabidlamb


    Stiffler2 wrote: »
    So let me get this right.
    the bank takes your house from you, and then expect you to continue paying the mortgage for 7 years afterwards.

    LOL - am I missing something here ?

    I wonder about this aswell, especially with the bankruptcy legislation pending & rumoured to be only 3 years.
    Why would you bother ?.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    theg81der
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭theg81der


    Eh Smash - any chance your going to have manners and apologise you were pretty rude and completely incorrect?!


  • Options
    #43
    jackal
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jackal


    smash wrote: »
    Then they were f*cked out though.
    smash wrote: »
    I really don't see your point here? You complained about the old government even though they've been f*cked out and now you're throwing around silly comments.

    The point is that the default rabble-rabble quote that's wheeled out is "why should we take the pain when the banks are responsible".

    1. Bob borrowed too much for an overpriced house, which has subsequently halved in value.
    2. Bobs bank let him borrow too much as they were in a highly aggressive sales war with competitors domestic and foreign, and there was tons of credit sloshing around looking for a home.
    3. The government failed to regulate the banks, because they would have been accused of collapsing the market by the majority of the population who were only interested in the market continuing to rise.
    4. Bob voted for the FF-led government, because he wanted the good times to continue.
    5. FF appeared to have found the golden goose, where buying and selling property in Ireland was heavily promoted and subsidised.
    Bob---elects--->government---regulates--->banks---lendto--->Bob

    So its a little rich for the borrows to claim this is all the banks fault.


  • Options
    #44
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    theg81der wrote: »
    Lol you didn`t read my post did you?lol I have my morgage completely paid - ok my house is modest but I own it and I worked damn hard for it when there was money to be made.
    theg81der wrote: »
    Eh Smash - any chance your going to have manners and apologise you were pretty rude and completely incorrect?!

    Right, so you paid off your mortgage early, but a lot of people couldn't do that and can't do it now either. People's circumstances changed very quickly. If your circumstances changed a few years ago you couldn't have done it either. There are still people working damn hard for their houses!

    And I wasn't rude. There's plenty of people with your attitude who don't own a house and the sentiment still stands for them.
    jackal wrote: »
    So its a little rich for the borrows to claim this is all the banks fault.

    It is the banks fault. It's a global crisis caused by banks. Not an Irish crisis caused by home buyers.


  • Options
    #45
    theg81der
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭theg81der


    smash wrote: »
    Right, so you paid off your mortgage early, but a lot of people couldn't do that and can't do it now either. People's circumstances changed very quickly. If your circumstances changed a few years ago you couldn't have done it either. There are still people working damn hard for their houses!

    And I wasn't rude. There's plenty of people with your attitude who don't own a house and the sentiment still stands for them.

    You didn`t read my post I was talking about people who want debt forgiveness not you clearly! And no I couldn`t have been affected by a change in circumstances I had a modest morgage which I knew I could afford and I did. What can you say did people seriously not realise things were good then, like it was obvious things would get bad - everything goes up and down d`uh!

    Your meeting your responsibilities, why shouldn`t other people? You just said circumstance change, everyone knows that unless they`re an absolute idiot!


  • Options
    #46
    jackal
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jackal


    Stiffler2 wrote: »
    So let me get this right.
    the bank takes your house from you, and then expect you to continue paying the mortgage for 7 years afterwards.

    LOL - am I missing something here ?

    IF I lost my house and the bank took it off me the first thing I would do is obvioulsy stop paying back the loan.

    This obvioulsy means you could never borrow or get a mortgage again but F**K that, I'd rent for the rest of my life and keep my 7 years worth of mortgage payments thank you very much

    twats

    Correct me if I am wrong here... did the bank give you the house, or the money to buy the house?

    If you get a bank lent you money for a €30,000 Mercedes, and you wrote the car off, do you think the bank should accept the smouldering wreck as full and final payment of the €30,000, and you should be allowed to walk away from the debt?


  • Options
    #47
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    jackal wrote: »
    Correct me if I am wrong here... did the bank give you the house, or the money to buy the house?

    If you get a bank lent you money for a €30,000 Mercedes, and you wrote the car off, do you think the bank should accept the smouldering wreck as full and final payment of the €30,000, and you should be allowed to walk away from the debt?

    Is it not the case that the house itself is collateral for the loan to buy it, something which obviously wouldn't work with a car which is subject to instant depreciation?


  • Options
    #48
    jackal
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jackal


    smash wrote: »
    It is the banks fault. It's a global crisis caused by banks. Not an Irish crisis caused by home buyers.

    You have to be trolling.


  • Options
    #49
    jackal
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jackal


    pickarooney wrote: »
    Is it not the case that the house itself is collateral for the loan to buy it, something which obviously wouldn't work with a car which is subject to instant depreciation?

    Are houses not subject to instant depreciation at the moment no? ;)

    The house is partial collateral, but the lender has recourse to the borrower. That's what was in the mortgage agreement the borrower signed.


  • Options
    #50
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    theg81der wrote: »
    like it was obvious things would get bad

    If you realised this, then instead of working your ass off paying a mortgage on a modest house why did you not save all your money and buy a better house for a lot cheaper when you knew the market would collapse? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #51
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    jackal wrote: »
    Are houses not subject to instant depreciation at the moment no? ;)

    Call it negative fluctuation? :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    theg81der
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭theg81der


    smash wrote: »
    If you realised this, then instead of working your ass off paying a mortgage on a modest house why did you not save all your money and buy a better house for a lot cheaper when you knew the market would collapse? :rolleyes:

    We bought before it was crazy money and I did what I could which was to cover my debts, why would I want to still have that morgage and another house and morgage? I wasn`t earning that much! I did actually warm many friends who were buying but they didn`t listen so sorry no sympathy for people.


  • Options
    #53
    Captain Darling
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭Captain Darling


    Tordelback wrote: »
    Not fishing for sympathy or anything like, just throwing out a personal anecdote by way of balance.

    When my wife and I bought our 1000sq ft 3-bed terrace in the fringes of Dublin 24 in 2004, we did so with the intention of raising our family in it. We took an 85% mortgage, using our savings for the 15%, at a value of just under 3 times our combined salaries. Our combined total income is now 1/3 of what it was then, between unemployment and savage pay-cuts, and with all our savings now gone we have little hope of keeping up our repayments to the end of this year, and the supposed market value of the house (if you could sell it at all) is considerably less than the remaining mortgage . Incidentally we have no car- or holiday-loans to cover, driving a 14 year old 1 litre, and holidaying in a tent in Wicklow or Galway.

    We were stupid, yes, but c*nts? Up to you.

    Well said, thats what i hate about some of the crap being spouted here about people being idiots over being caught up with the property boom.

    An awful lot of young families are caught up in a vice of negative equity and mortgage repayments just because they wanted to start a family and have a home. I know its After Hours, and some opinions in here are dubious at the best of times, but i fcuking hate with a vengeance the opinion that 'it serves them right.'

    It boils my piss. Fcuking knobheads.


  • Options
    #54
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    theg81der wrote: »
    why would I want to still have that morgage and another house and morgage?

    That's not what I suggested. What I suggested is that if you knew there'd be a collapse then why did you buy at all instead of saving?

    Now you're saying you bought "before it was crazy money", also that you weren't earning that much and did what you could to cover your bills.

    See there are people out there who were earning over 100k a year, bought a house for 600k which they could well afford. Now they have no job and a house worth 200k with an outstanding mortgage of probably 580/590.


  • Options
    #55
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    smash wrote: »
    It is the banks fault. It's a global crisis caused by banks. Not an Irish crisis caused by home buyers.

    The mortgage/property market in Ireland is an Irish problem.

    The banks would stipulate how much they are willing to loan out, then they would also assign their own people to determin the value of a property you wished to purchase. If someone was to value a porperty it should be an independant party who has no direct interest in the bank or the person seaking the mortgage.

    In regards to a comment by someone else earlier advising people to save up to purchase, because of the above, the prices were kept too high to buy in such circumstances. Even with them coming down to "2001 levels," I would not consider myself be in a position to purchase a house either.


  • Options
    #56
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    jackal wrote: »
    So its a little rich for the borrows to claim this is all the banks fault.
    It's not all the banks' fault by a long stretch, but there is an issue with lending in general in that the bank actually takes very little risk. Certainly in this country anyway.
    Mortgages for the banks are investments in reality. They are investing money into a person on the basis that they will repay it at a higher return.

    In the real world when you make an investment into anything which goes bust, you take the scraps and you walk away.

    In the case of mortgages, this doesn't happen. The bank takes the scraps, and then everything else, and then requires the borrower to continue repaying until the debt is cleared.

    So in Ireland the bank is taking little or no risk in lending a mortgage, the entire risk is loaded on the borrower.

    In a sane market situation, the bank would shoulder much more risk and therefore make more reasonable loan decisions. The banks weren't all that concerned about whether property prices would go up or down, because the value of the loans on their books aren't actually dependent on the value of property, rather on the ability of the borrowers to repay.

    If the law in Ireland allowed for "jingle mail", then banks would have kept a sterner and more rational eye on the market. This would have resulted in more stringent lending rules and prevented the market from growing so wildly in the first place.

    While there will always be personal responsibility in borrowing what you can afford, people don't have degrees in accounting or economics. So the banks themselves should take a substantial risk in mortgage lending so that they make rational lending choices.


  • Options
    #57
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    The mortgage/property market in Ireland is an Irish problem.

    The banks would stipulate how much they are willing to loan out, then they would also assign their own people to determin the value of a property you wished to purchase. If someone was to value a porperty it should be an independant party who has no direct interest in the bank or the person seaking the mortgage.

    So it is the banks fault...


  • Options
    #58
    Caoimhín
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,789 ✭✭✭Caoimhín


    Sea Sharp wrote: »
    This scheme has the potential to work. The bank now owns the house but there's no saying it will be able to sell the house in the next seven years. Probably what will happen is that you hand over your house to the banks and get to live there paying means tested rent for the next seven years.

    Dont be so cynical!

    Our dear leaders would never endorse such nonsense.






    Would they?......


  • Options
    #59
    theg81der
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭theg81der


    smash wrote: »
    See there are people out there who were earning over 100k a year, bought a house for 600k which they could well afford. Now they have no job and a house worth 200k with an outstanding mortgage of probably 580/590.

    Em....so they could afford a 30 year morgage on a 600k house, cause thats what they signed up for??? Thats right no they couldn`t! They long term couldn`t afford to service their debt and had no reason to believe they could, no savings nothing for that rainy day.

    I`m clearly not a genius if I wasn`t earning that much and I could see things were obviously not going to continue long term, they weren`t sustainable. So we had a lot of very overpaid morons then!


  • Options
    #60
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    theg81der wrote: »
    Em....so they could afford a 30 year morgage on a 600k house, cause thats what they signed up for??? Thats right no they couldn`t! They long term couldn`t afford to service their debt and had no reason to believe they could, no savings nothing for that rainy day.
    Yes they could! They had a good wage and didn't expect a global meltdown. They could have had savings too, but savings make no difference when you're long term unemployed.
    theg81der wrote: »
    I`m clearly not a genius if I wasn`t earning that much and I could see things were obviously not going to continue long term, they weren`t sustainable. So we had a lot of very overpaid morons then!
    What you fail to realise is that even though you took out a modest mortgage because you didn't earn much, you took it out well before prices got high. And even at that, if there had been a global meltdown and you were made redundant, disregarding how small the mortgage was, there is still a high possibility that you would not have been able to afford it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    jackal
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jackal


    seamus wrote: »
    Mortgages for the banks are investments in reality. They are investing money into a person on the basis that they will repay it at a higher return.

    In the real world when you make an investment into anything which goes bust, you take the scraps and you walk away.

    In the case of mortgages, this doesn't happen. The bank takes the scraps, and then everything else, and then requires the borrower to continue repaying until the debt is cleared.

    Absolutely agree, the banks would be much more responsible if they only had recourse to the property securing the loan.

    But at this stage, its a case of bolting the gate after the horse is gone. Mortgages in Ireland are and always were full recourse.

    The law is not going to be changed to allow jingle mail now, as in a depressed market, many who can pay but fancy offloading their negative equity would strategically default.


Advertisement