Repossessions

pawnacide

And here I was bothering to try and explain why I believe what I do.. I realise now thats not really necessary. In future I think I'll just keep restating the same point without reason or argument. I like circles .. Do you like circles ?

Spiritofthekop

Whats the percentage of repossessions in the UK compared to Ireland?

pawnacide

Stats here

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/one-in-14-irish-mortgages-is-more-than-six-months-in-arrears-latest-statistics-show/

Fighting Irish

Victor wrote: »

It is just as well the person removed the insult before I got here.

:pac:

Spiritofthekop

pawnacide wrote: »

Stats here

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/one-in-14-irish-mortgages-is-more-than-six-months-in-arrears-latest-statistics-show/

Massive difference, seems the UK dont beat around the bush if you cant repay the loans you signed for.

Spiritofthekop

Taken from the property pin.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/renters-future-owners-left-in-the-dark-187762.html


Renters, future owners left in the dark
Wednesday, March 21, 2012


There are so many voices advocating for the interests of property owners that another even more sizeable group in our society is completely ignored.

We are the renters and future home buyers. No one ever appears in the media to speak for us. We don’t have the Irish Property Owners Association, Irish Mortgage Brokers, New Beginnings or any of the vested interest economists to advocate on our behalf. And what are our interests? We wish to see house prices continue to fall and for the banks to finally begin repossessions.

Here’s why. We will reach the bottom faster and become a more competitive society, more of our people will be able to buy their own homes without being inordinately indebted, and those people who are overburdened will bite the bullet and finally move on with their lives.

This may sound callous, but is it any more callous than dragging out a house crash in slow motion over a decade and encumbering future generations with unsustainable debts to prop up a fantasy that there are no consequences for poor decisions?

Is it any more callous than asking people who rent to subsidise those who cannot pay their mortgage, making it impossible for them to ever aspire to home ownership?

Please bear us in mind. We are out here and there are many more of us than there are property owners.


Malahide
Co Dublin


Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/renters-future-owners-left-in-the-dark-187762.html#ixzz1qPqKuigu

pawnacide

How many times are you gonna post that nonsense in the same thread ?

Interesting though that you would try and portray the defense of ordinary people in ordinary jobs being allowed to keep their ordinary homes as somehow being a money making plot by vested interests. Talk about turning things on their head. All I can say is WOW.

Perhaps it's time you looked beyond your own vested interest.

Spiritofthekop

pawnacide wrote: »

How many times are you gonna post that nonsense in the same thread ?

Interesting though that you would try and portray the defense of ordinary people in ordinary jobs being allowed to keep their ordinary homes as somehow being a money making plot by vested interests. Talk about turning things on their head. All I can say is WOW.

Perhaps it's time you looked beyond your own vested interest.

Its only nonsense to you Mr Property owner/auctioneer/Investor.

Im only talking up a falling property market cause thats what it is & I want to see a natural bottom occur so I can finally see some value for money. Im not trying to pretend anything, if property was not falling I would not be talking about it and pretending its not happening. Just like if there was a boom I would be talking about it too.

Its the media who started all the propaganda and vested interest years ago and got away with it. See how much damage it did.

People can see through the BS now and are willing to take them on at there own game.

pawnacide

Spiritofthekop wrote: »

Its only nonsense to you Mr Property owner/auctioneer/Investor.

Im only talking up a falling property market cause thats what it is & I want to see a natural bottom occur so I can finally see some value for money. Im not trying to pretend anything, if property was not falling I would not be talking about it and pretending its not happening. Just like if there was a boom I would be talking about it too.

Its the media who started all the propaganda and vested interest years ago and got away with it. See how much damage it did.

People can see true the BS now and are willing to take them on there own game.

erm ..ok, I think.

The_Conductor

Ok guys- we keep rehashing the same luke warm nuggets again and again here. If you have something new to say- rather than simply sniping at one another- please be my guest, otherwise, this thread gets closed.

pawnacide

K, but before the thread gets closed I'd really like to hear just how repossessing and selling houses in the current market makes financial sense to the banks and the country and somehow alleviates the debt burden on future generations. As far as I can see it simply leaves the same amount of outstanding debt and probably at a higher interest rate.

daltonmd

Spiritofthekop wrote: »

But some people just cant see it Zamboni....very well put by the way.

Its like the renters who saved for a day when they could afford something always come last in every situation with the media. Its like they dont matter...

while...

The investors, auctioneers & first time buyers, landlords always have this attitude that they deserve first dibs on everything and the people who stayed out of it all but saved & want in now dont get any say in it.

Its like they are saying well property has fallen a lot from a false peak so you should be happy.... so sh-t up looking for real value, the property market is still vastly over- priced in most situations!

The renters who saved for a better day out there get no exposure or any help from the powers that be.

I disagree with you - it's well put only if you agree that when the couple took out their mortgage in 2006 that they had an income that meant they could repay this mortgage.

Where is the reckless borrowing? They both worked? Where is there crime.

Now I agree with you and Zamboni on a lot of issues, I respect your posts and respect you as posters - but in this issue we will have to agree to disagree.


I rent as well - I am not an investor, a landlord, an EA or a developer. I have no vested interest. What I see is a major problem dowm the road is this issue isn't addressed properly.

I am not advocating giving people free houses, I am not advocating allowing greedy property moguls to walk away and start again. What I am saying, using the above example, is that couples like this, who bought property based on earnings that they had, that they may never have again, should not be financially ruined forever.

It's not going to helo this country in the long run - we are paying for the boom, we will continue paying for the boom, but I think that it's time that we treated working taxpayers with the same courtesy that we treated the banks, the bondholders and the big developers - whose lifestyles have not changed one bit.

Regards.

Spiritofthekop

I'll take the mods advice and leave it at that then but I stand by what I say though!

Nobody gave two sh#ts about the renters & young people during the boom when we were being priced out of everything so most choose not to take up big loans they knew that they might not be able to handle in the future & I still feel its the same attitude now towards the renters looking to get on the property market. No one is offering free money for a head start like the way they are talking up writing off the debt people signed off on so they can keep the houses.

Anyway we will have to agree to disagree.

Regards

daltonmd

Spiritofthekop wrote: »

Massive difference, seems the UK dont beat around the bush if you cant repay the loans you signed for.

Not quite the full story -In 2010 29,000 people were declard bankrupt in the UK.

In 2011 it was 41,845.

In Ireland. 29 people were declared bankrupt in 2010 - including Sean Fitzpatrick. No stats for 2011.

The UK have a "friendly" bankruptcy regime, under certain criteria you are discharged from your debt in 12 months.

You are inadvertantly advocating for this.

Spiritofthekop wrote: »

Nobody gave two sh#ts about the renters & young people during the boom when we were being priced out of everything & chose not to take up big loans they knew that they might not be able to handle in the future & I still feel its the same attitude now towards the renters looking to get on the property market. No one is offering free money for a head start like the way they are talking up writing off the debt people signed off on so they can keep the houses.

You think they give a s*** now? You think they'll reduce the interest rate for us? Will they heck. I'm in the middle of changing bank accounts because I'm being treated as some kind of bank - by a bank.

Don't think that those in dire straits did this - they were well aided and abetted by the government, by the banks, the central bank, and the media.

Either way you and I will pay for this - through taxes, through stealth taxes, lower standard of living, lower services - but the banks will be ok.

Zamboni

daltonmd wrote: »

Now I agree with you and Zamboni on a lot of issues, I respect your posts and respect you as posters - but in this issue we will have to agree to disagree.

Reciprocated.

daltonmd wrote: »

Where is the reckless borrowing? They both worked? Where is there crime.

Maybe not crime but there was certainly a massive gamble.
If you have to take out a mortgage at many multiples of combined incomes to buy a house than the market is clearly not for you.

daltonmd wrote: »

What I am saying, using the above example, is that couples like this, who bought property based on earnings that they had, that they may never have again, should not be financially ruined forever.

I agree with you but they should not keep the house under any circumstances.

The prudent tax paying renter is facing the following in 2012;
An overinflated property market due to government interference by repossession moratorium.
An overinflated rental market due to government interference by rent allowance/supplement provision.
Paying higher taxes to pay for the reckless lending by banks and reckless borrowing by current defaulters to cover debt write off.
Paying higher taxes to pay towards the welfare system which provides the now unemployed reckless borrowers an income.

And having the displeasure of having to watch all this from rented accomodation instead of being in their own house for choosing prudence over impulse.

daltonmd

Zamboni wrote: »

Reciprocated.

Appreciated.

Zamboni wrote: »

Maybe not crime but there was certainly a massive gamble.
If you have to take out a mortgage at many multiples of combined incomes to buy a house than the market is clearly not for you.

But was loaned by a regulated government registered body - there has to be recognition of this. The gamble for most people? That they would lose their jobs and their homes would halve in value? Nobody would have bought if they thought this was on the cards. They were pushed by the government, the media and the general madness that people got caught up in - a classic boom scenario.

Zamboni wrote: »

I agree with you but they should not keep the house under any circumstances.

Absolutely not. If you bought a 1 million Euro home that's now worth 500k and you can only afford 250k - then you leave the house and live somewhere more appropriate for your income. Do you walk away scot free - absolutely not - you carry "some" of the debt, as do the taxpayer now and so should the bank.

Zamboni wrote: »

The prudent tax paying renter is facing the following in 2012;
An overinflated property market due to government interference by repossession moratorium.
An overinflated rental market due to government interference by rent allowance/supplement provision.
Paying higher taxes to pay for the reckless lending by banks and reckless borrowing by current defaulters to cover debt write off.
Paying higher taxes to pay towards the welfare system which provides the now unemployed reckless borrowers an income.

Facing it? We're living it. This won't change - it will get worse because many people will skip to the UK, take the new Irish bankruptcy, leave the country, leave jobs to leave the country - either way this will happen, I just prefer it to happen in a more structured way. Give decent working taxpayers a chance to stay in their modest homes, paying tax, not on SW, not defaulting but paying an appropriate mortgage which fits their means and their home.

Zamboni wrote: »

And having the displeasure of having to watch all this from rented accomodation instead of being in their own house for choosing prudence over impulse.

We will not have a normal property market or banking system until the issue of mortgage debt is dealt with. I would rather watch all this from rented accomadation than buy a home where I am not sure if property will dip further when all these people do default/leave, when I don't actually know what my property tax may be, my income may be or indeed my employment situation may be - I wouldn't swap my rented home for a bought home in a heartbeat and I thank my lucky stars every day.

CiaranC

daltonmd wrote: »

I am not advocating giving people free houses, I am not advocating allowing greedy property moguls to walk away and start again. What I am saying, using the above example, is that couples like this, who bought property based on earnings that they had, that they may never have again, should not be financially ruined forever.

Noone would disagree with that. All we are saying is that there is no way they should be allowed remain in a property which they cannot pay for, bankrolled by other tax payers, at the expense of those who didnt buy into the pyramid scheme. That is grossly unfair.

shangri la

Are there recent official figures available on the amount of money spent annually on rent supplement and the number of people receiving it?

Who is the best source for house price decreases? The rating agencies such as fitch, s&p?

what reliefs are available to people who can't afford their mortgage? Is there a welfare scheme that pays part of a homeowners mortgage?

Have nama released comprehensive figures that show the number of residential homes they have on their books? How many are liveable? How many of the livable houses are inhabited?

daltonmd

CiaranC wrote: »

Noone would disagree with that. All we are saying is that there is no way they should be allowed remain in a property which they cannot pay for, bankrolled by other tax payers, at the expense of those who didnt buy into the pyramid scheme. That is grossly unfair.

Ciaran, as a renter and hopefully, a future homeowner, there is no way in hell that I would advocate people keeping their homes if they cannot pay a mortgage on the value of it today. Not a chance.

Let's say you bought a home for 350k (which I think is a more realistic example than 600k - no offence Zamboni) and it's now worth 175k, let's say the owners work and due to cuts can only repay that mortgage amount.

I don't see the advantage to anyone to kick the occupants out, put the house on the market where it *may* sell for 175k - the occupiers are now being chased for entire debt - they will never be able to pay any of it because they now have to rent. Instead of 175k being repaid - nothing is, the entire debt is gone.

The main objective should be to keep people in their (bog standard) homes, allowing them to repay the mortgage at todays value - they shouldn't be allowed to move/sell up and some kind of lien should be put on the property to enable to bank to claw back a reasonable part of the debt in the future.

I don't think that homeowners should have debt forgiveness - not at all. They made the decision to buy - they have part responsibility in their own situation but so do the banks and the government.

Zamboni

daltonmd wrote: »

Let's say you bought a home for 350k (which I think is a more realistic example than 600k - no offence Zamboni) and it's now worth 175k, let's say the owners work and due to cuts can only repay that mortgage amount.

Haha. No worries. It was certainly a realistic and common occurance in South Dublin.

smallerthanyou

daltonmd wrote: »

Let's say you bought a home for 350k (which I think is a more realistic example than 600k - no offence Zamboni) and it's now worth 175k, let's say the owners work and due to cuts can only repay that mortgage amount.

I don't see the advantage to anyone to kick the occupants out, put the house on the market where it *may* sell for 175k - the occupiers are now being chased for entire debt - they will never be able to pay any of it because they now have to rent. Instead of 175k being repaid - nothing is, the entire debt is gone.

In your example they pay on today's value of 175k. What happens if in 10 years the house is worth 250k. The mortgage holder has gets to keep all of the upside potential without having suffered any of the downside. That is incredibly unfair and completely against any market principles. Repossessions are tough. Noone likes to see anyone turfed out of what they see as their home but it has to happen in unsustainable cases.

daltonmd

smallerthanyou wrote: »

In your example they pay on today's value of 175k. What happens if in 10 years the house is worth 250k. The mortgage holder has gets to keep all of the upside potential without having suffered any of the downside. That is incredibly unfair and completely against any market principles. Repossessions are tough. Noone likes to see anyone turfed out of what they see as their home but it has to happen in unsustainable cases.

It's only a benefit to the mortgage holder if they sell though and they shouldn't be able to sell - if they do then the profit goes off their debt.
Repossessions are tough and in some cases that may be the only option.

But again if people are living in a home that's now valued at 175k and they can service that mortgage then why turf them out and risk getting nothing back?

Fighting Irish

daltonmd wrote: »

Ciaran, as a renter and hopefully, a future homeowner, there is no way in hell that I would advocate people keeping their homes if they cannot pay a mortgage on the value of it today. Not a chance.

Let's say you bought a home for 350k (which I think is a more realistic example than 600k - no offence Zamboni) and it's now worth 175k, let's say the owners work and due to cuts can only repay that mortgage amount.

I don't see the advantage to anyone to kick the occupants out, put the house on the market where it *may* sell for 175k - the occupiers are now being chased for entire debt - they will never be able to pay any of it because they now have to rent. Instead of 175k being repaid - nothing is, the entire debt is gone.

The main objective should be to keep people in their (bog standard) homes, allowing them to repay the mortgage at todays value - they shouldn't be allowed to move/sell up and some kind of lien should be put on the property to enable to bank to claw back a reasonable part of the debt in the future.

I don't think that homeowners should have debt forgiveness - not at all. They made the decision to buy - they have part responsibility in their own situation but so do the banks and the government.

Some people need to learn the hard way i'm afraid

shangri la

daltonmd wrote: »

Ciaran, as a renter and hopefully, a future homeowner, there is no way in hell that I would advocate people keeping their homes if they cannot pay a mortgage on the value of it today. Not a chance.

Let's say you bought a home for 350k (which I think is a more realistic example than 600k - no offence Zamboni) and it's now worth 175k, let's say the owners work and due to cuts can only repay that mortgage amount.

I don't see the advantage to anyone to kick the occupants out, put the house on the market where it *may* sell for 175k - the occupiers are now being chased for entire debt - they will never be able to pay any of it because they now have to rent. Instead of 175k being repaid - nothing is, the entire debt is gone.

The main objective should be to keep people in their (bog standard) homes, allowing them to repay the mortgage at todays value - they shouldn't be allowed to move/sell up and some kind of lien should be put on the property to enable to bank to claw back a reasonable part of the debt in the future.

I don't think that homeowners should have debt forgiveness - not at all. They made the decision to buy - they have part responsibility in their own situation but so do the banks and the government.

you want the taxpayer to pay E175,000 of this persons mortgage?

jmayo

pawnacide wrote: »

1999 - 2006 Chef
2006 - 2010 Auctioneer
2011 - 2012 General Dogsbody

You picked the wrong time to change career.
General Dogsbody where though

pawnacide wrote: »

Anything else ya wanna know just ask. House prices are completely irrelevant to what I do now. Up/Down makes no odds. In fact probably marginally better if they go down. But that doesn't mean I wanna see people thrown out of houses.

So if someone cannot repay their mortgage they should get debt writedown/writeoff and be allowed continue to live there and continue to have ownership ?

You do know that with that scenario the taxpayers (including possibly themselves and others who did not buy and may still be renting) are subsidising their lifestyle at their expenses.

pawnacide wrote: »

How many times are you gonna post that nonsense in the same thread ?

Interesting though that you would try and portray the defense of ordinary people in ordinary jobs being allowed to keep their ordinary homes as somehow being a money making plot by vested interests. Talk about turning things on their head. All I can say is WOW.

Perhaps it's time you looked beyond your own vested interest.

And perhaps it is time you looked beyond the vested interests of people who bought property that they can no longer afford.

If the non property owners do not look out for their own interests it is particularly noticable nobody else will. :mad:

You have property owners, property investors/landlords, social welfare advocates (rent allowance and mortgage writeoff proponents), media hacks, auctioneers, developers, politicans, NAMA connected types all trying to ensure that property prices remain at an artifical level and is not allowed reach it's correct market level.

daltonmd wrote: »

Ciaran, as a renter and hopefully, a future homeowner, there is no way in hell that I would advocate people keeping their homes if they cannot pay a mortgage on the value of it today. Not a chance.

Let's say you bought a home for 350k (which I think is a more realistic example than 600k - no offence Zamboni) and it's now worth 175k, let's say the owners work and due to cuts can only repay that mortgage amount.

What a load of bol***.
You are giving them a debt writeoff with no adverse affects to them.
A debt writedown that ultimately has to be covered by the taxpayers of this state. :mad:

This also creates a huge moral hazard.
What about the guy down the road or next door, with the same property type, that can still pay his mortgage ?

What about the guy down the road who chose to save a bigger deposit and/or pay off bigger chunks of his mortgage whilst he had the opportunity ?
Where is the reward for him ?
Oh yeah he gets to see the neighbour slide by and end up with the same property has him even though he may not have been as financially prudent. :rolleyes:

If someone gets a debt writedown/writeoff then in return they either get out or relinguish ownership and rent the property back.
No way do they get to fookin sail on as if nothing has bloody happened.
Otherwise it makes a mockery of financial prudience.

daltonmd

jmayo wrote: »

What a load of bol***.
You are giving them a debt writeoff with no adverse affects to them.
A debt writedown that ultimately has to be covered by the taxpayers of this state. :mad:.

For the last time - we are already covering the banks losses, writedown of mortgage debt was included in the recapitilisation. They haven't passed this to people who will never be in a position to repay boom mortgages.

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.

What's better? repayment of 175k out of 350k or nothing?

jmayo wrote: »

This also creates a huge moral hazard.
What about the guy down the road or next door, with the same property type, that can still pay his mortgage ?.

He can still pay his mortgage today. What about next year? The year after? It's not called the "mortgage timebomb" for nothing. Don't kid yourself into believing that this is a small, short-term problem.

It's a solution for those who CANNOT repay. If you can then you are one of the lucky ones. As I have CLEARLY stated - this should nto be a free ride. There should be sanctions, restrictions and a possible repayment of some of the debt down the road.

jmayo wrote: »

What about the guy down the road who chose to save a bigger deposit and/or pay off bigger chunks of his mortgage whilst he had the opportunity ?
Where is the reward for him ?
Oh yeah he gets to see the neighbour slide by and end up with the same property has him even though he may not have been as financially prudent. :rolleyes:.

So your take is - throw them out, recoup ZERO, have them on SW???

jmayo wrote: »

If someone gets a debt writedown/writeoff then in return they either get out or relinguish ownership and rent the property back.
No way do they get to fookin sail on as if nothing has bloody happened.
Otherwise it makes a mockery of financial prudience.

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.

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.

The banks got the money - we, the taxpayer are already bailing them out - THEY should pass this on to hopeless cases.

This issue is not going away. It will get worse.

daltonmd

shangri la wrote: »

you want the taxpayer to pay E175,000 of this persons mortgage?

It's either that or be on the line for 350k - your choice?

riclad

The banks should be made to write down x amount for people in difficulty with their loans, say 35 percent ,eg loan 200k is now just 125k.Probably nothing will happen ,people will wait and see how the new bankruptcy law is put into practice.
I mean this arrangement could be used for noninvestors ,i dont have much sympathy for people who bought houses for 200k to rent out,when even the rental income could never cover the mortgage.
There could be an independent body used like mabs to monitor the new mortrgage agreement for fairness .IF the banks were to suddenly repossess 10ooo homes ,it probably would push down house prices even more ,making the banks worse off than they are now.
Thats whats happening in the usa , many forecloresures in an area ,push down the
price of houses in that area ,or state.

ballyharpat

we wouldn't be on the line for 350k. There are frugal out there, like me, that have been saving for a hpuse and will pay 175k, or whatever the market decides the house is worth. What about someone that bought a e1million house and it's now worth only 500k, they can afford the 500k, do they get a writedown of 500k??

daltonmd

ballyharpat wrote: »

we wouldn't be on the line for 350k. There are frugal out there, like me, that have been saving for a hpuse and will pay 175k, or whatever the market decides the house is worth. What about someone that bought a e1million house and it's now worth only 500k, they can afford the 500k, do they get a writedown of 500k??

I think the amount of the write down is academic - I think we have to agree that the boom price was a fallacy - whether it's a 100k house or a 1 million Euro house - these prices will not exist again in our lifetime.

The point is that if someone can service a mortgage at todays valuation then they should be helped.

So far in this thread we have used 50% as the mark in price falls - I personally believe that this is optimistic, I think 70% - 80% is what we will really see.

Another poster asked what would happen if the house price rose in 10 years to 250k from 175k (half of boom 350k price).

Here's what I personally see.

Boom 350k

Today - 175k (If owners can service that mortgage well and good)

Over the next 24 months 135k.

Now in order for that house to reach 250k we will have to see the following: I do believe that we are in line for 2 more years of hefty falls.

2013 10% Fall
2014 10% Fall

Price approx 135k in 2014.

A healthy property market rises by approx 3% per year.

(Back of envelope and rounding up figures, but I think you'll get the drift)

2015 3% rise 140k
2016 3% rise 144k
2017 3% rise 147k
2018 3% rise 151k
2019 3% rise 156k
2020 3% rise 161k
2021 3% rise 165k
2022 3% rise 171k
2023 3% rise 176k
2024 3% rise 181k

To get to 250k will take a long time - can anyone see 5% or 10% price rises after a couple of years? I can't.

If a house falls by 50% - it needs 100% increase to get back to the purchase price.

EG:

House 350k falls by 50% - 175k - to return to 350k then that's double or 100% increase.

Many, many mortgages are simply unsustainable - in the next few years many , many people will realise that their homes will never come back to what they paid - it's as simple as that.

For at least the next 3 years we are looking at increasing taxes, water charges, property tax, household charge, higher personal tax, motor tax, insurance, car insurance, petrol prices - lower disposable income.

Todays people who are "coping" won't cope next year, or the year after and the year after that - it is a timebomb.