Writing off mortgage debt

Tigerandahalf

It seems like some mortgage debt will be written off as people simply can't afford to pay their mortgages. Many genuine people are unemployed. So what will happen? Will those who were prudent lose out? Or could some other scheme be done to make it more fair to everyone?
For example, if a person had a 400,000 mortgage. The gov/banks agree to write off 100,000. The gov/banks however take a 1/4 stake in the house. Thus the person is not getting off completely. If the person sold the house 10 years down the road the gov would get 1/4 of the price.
Would this be fair and possible?

Let's keep this reasonable as I'm sure there could be strong feelings on both sides.

Hayte

There is already a whole set of procedures for this sort of thing. One of the ways a lender can enforce a debt is to register it as a burden on title (a Judgement Mortgage), usually when more direct methods of debt recovery have failed. This way, it is possible for the lender to force a sale of the property and recover the debt from the proceeds of the sale.

You should check out courts.ie for information on mortgage suits and the like. They probably have some "cheat sheets" in the Examiner's office with a flow chart of the court procedure i.e. obtaining an execution order, registering a judgement in the land registry as a burden on title, applying for a well charging order and an order for sale etc.

So those are the rules. The exceptions (which are unique and specific to each case) have to be worked out by all the parties involved in a courtroom with a Judge having the final say.

Tigerandahalf

So could this be a possibility in dealing with mortgage debt?

I think there will have to be a passing of the Fiscal Compact Treaty, and a little bit of continuous growth at home before people at large will open up to the idea of any sort of meaningful mortgage forgiveness. I would imagine it would have to be done percentage-wise, rather than throwing massive figures around, and I would imagine it would be nowhere near the full amount.

Brussels Sprout

A lot of last week's Frontline was devoted to this. They had a few people on the panel who basically said that write-downs that didn't involve the people handing the property back to the bank would be unworkable. The logic went like this:

If banks start writing off mortgage debt at a certain level then people who are just below that level will stop paying their mortgages so as to fall into enough debt to get some written off.

Tigerandahalf

Yes but if they do get debt written off they would lose a percentage of their house. This would have negative affects as the gov/banks would be written into the deeds of the house. Even getting repairs/extension done on house would require permission. Not many people would want to lose full ownership of their house.

Head The Wall

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Yes but if they do get debt written off they would lose a percentage of their house. This would have negative affects as the gov/banks would be written into the deeds of the house. Even getting repairs/extension done on house would require permission. Not many people would want to lose full ownership of their house.

You don't really have ownership of a house until you have the mortgage fully paid off. It seems to me like nobody reads the terms and conditions of their mortgages before signing them, is it any wonder we have so many people in such dire straits

here is a fair question:

What about renters who are also as you state "genuine people" who can no longer afford to pay their current level of rent?

jased10s

im getting screwed by PTSB for approx €300 a month extra compared to AIB, so approx €100000 over the life of the loan unless some fairness comes in to 2 state owned banks. €300 less i can spend on the local ecomony.
Theres who can pay and who pay more .

NakedNNettles

There should be no write down of debt for anyone. Full Stop!

I spent long enough saving and investing my pennies to try to get ahead of the 'beemer' & multitude flash holidays a year with their massive houses in prime locations crowd.

F them, leave them up to their necks.

My time has come now, I want a shot at the cherry.

Wizzbit

NakedNNettles wrote: »

There should be no write down of debt for anyone. Full Stop!

I spent long enough saving and investing my pennies to try to get ahead of the 'beemer' & multitude flash holidays a year with their massive houses in prime locations crowd.

F them, leave them up to their necks.

My time has come now, I want a shot at the cherry.

Ok whilst I get your general view and am off a similar position...maybe just a tad bit harsh... don't get me wrong, we were the same, saving anything we could, never borrowed to go on hols or trips or to buy flash appliances. If we couldn't afford to go on holiday, we just didn't go or else we went somewhere cheaper etc... if we needed to get a new appliance or stuff for the house, we saved up for it. I think society is split on this one, you have half the population (not all) that went 'mad' in the boom and are now in neg equity, struggling to make payments etc and then the other half who are also struggling but 'played' safe during the boom and are still keeping the heads above water but will not get a write off but will have to cover the cost for those who over-borrowed.

bbsrs

How could this work , it's impossible I think . Say in 2006 I bought a house for 400k in an estate and put 200k of my money into it and got a mortgage for the remaining 200k . My house is now worth 200k.
My next door neighbour got a 92% mortgage of 368k and his house is now worth 200k .
My neighbour is in neg eq for 168k and I'm not .
How in fairness could they write off some of his debt without compensating me for the same bad investment except I lost my own money and not the banks?
I know they wouldn't compensate me for losing my own money so I don't see how they write off debt just because it's mortgage debt.

Tigerandahalf

That is one of the problems and I'm sure many other examples will spring up. There are many who believe that the banks should take care of it and just foreclose on people. That would mean evictions and putting people up on council houses. Whatever will happen v few people will be put out of their house as above all it would not make financial sense, as the cost would fall back on the gov. Perhaps we will have to see some board/court set up that will decide on whether people are making an effort to repay and achieve a settlement based on that. However, people can be very adept at hiding assets and only PAYE workers would fit this model. This has the potential to divide the country more than anything else. As you said above people would be left v bitter if their neighbour got preferential treatment.
If a board/court was set up with real teeth to punish people who don't comply or reveal all then maybe it could be sorted. But what do you do about people who just won't pay? If they are evicted does the gov have to provide accommodation for them? In fairness I would say most people in difficulty want to achieve some sort of a fair solution. At the end of the day we will all have to pick up the tab in some way whether people like or not, unless Europe agrees to write off debt.

Sponge Bob

There will be writedowns after the people seeking a writedown go into bankruptcy and work through all their debts and liabilities.

The only modification required is to shorten the period of bankruptcy, it is too long at 12 years. In a case where only one debt...eg a mortgage....is a problem there should be a low administration bankrupcy procedure not the long winded and intensive proceure that is there now.

Leaving people in homes they cannot afford....eg a palazzo in Killiney.....is not a solution. These places should be sold and the debtor should move somewhere in keeping with their circumstances.

amen

That would mean evictions and putting people up on council houses

It doesn't have to. Simpy forclose, evict and then and let them back as a private tenant.

Mr.Micro

Sponge Bob wrote: »

There will be writedowns after the people seeking a writedown go into bankruptcy and work through all their debts and liabilities.

The only modification required is to shorten the period of bankruptcy, it is too long at 12 years. In a case where only one debt...eg a mortgage....is a problem there should be a low administration bankrupcy procedure not the long winded and intensive proceure that is there now.

Leaving people in homes they cannot afford....eg a palazzo in Killiney.....is not a solution. These places should be sold and the debtor should move somewhere in keeping with their circumstances.

Indeed. I am sick and tired of some people thinking that they should be let off their debts and still keep the house and whatever. What about all the other people who paid their way, or do up an old house, and are left with a house that is worth a lot less. Should they expect re-numeration for all they expenses they incurred as well, because of the imprudence of others?

Tigerandahalf

The case in Killiney is a very rare case. The vast majority will be young families where one or other parent has lost their job or people who have taken paycuts and can't keep up with increased taxes etc. They won't be moved from their house and that's fair enough. Kids are in school and one of the parents may have a job close by.
The gov has to get their act together and put pressure on the ECB to write off debt. People can't spend in the economy if all their wages are going on paying back debt. It makes sense that people can move on and have money to spend to get the country going again.
The Fiscal Treaty could well be our last real chance as ordinary people to have a say on matters and to dictate policy. After that we will be relying on the gov to put it upto Europe. If we vote YES without getting serious write off we are wasting an opportunity.

Pete_Cavan

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

The case in Killiney is a very case. The vast majority will be young families where one or other parent has lost their job or people who have taken paycuts and can't keep up with increased taxes etc. They won't be moved from their house and that's fair enough. Kids are in school and one of the parents may have a job close by.

Where are you getting that from? You cant just make up some tear-jerking story and say it applies to the "vast majority" of those concerned without backing upbn the claim.

The gov has to get their act together and put pressure on the ECB to write off debt. People can't spend in the economy if all their wages are going on paying back debt. It makes sense that people can move on and have money to spend to get the country going again.

While we are at it, why not get the government to put pressure on the ECB to give everyone else €50,000 to allow them to "have money to spend to get the country going again"?

The Fiscal Treaty could well be our last real chance as ordinary people to have a say on matters and to dictate policy. After that we will be relying on the gov to put it upto Europe. If we vote YES without getting serious write off we are wasting an opportunity.

Great idea, we sign up to the Treaty, without considering the long term consequences, as long as there is a short term gain in it for ourselves - sure if we didnt re-elect Bertie when he was offering give-away budgets and tax incentives for buying second homes, we would have been wasting an opportunity.

I dont mean to sound antagonistic, but just trying to make the point that, whatever way you try to justify it, mortgage forgiveness is giving preferential treatment to a select few (which is not clearly defined and it may be possible for some to engineer a situation where, people who wouldnt otherwise, become part of this select few) at the expense of everyone else, which a lot of people will not be happy about.

Tigerandahalf

Well if you dont do anything people will just walk away and leave the keys in the letterbox. People took the advice of the gov to buy. Should they be made to suck it up now because the gov messed up. By the way I am not talking about people who bought second houses. They gambled and lost.

hmmm

jased10s wrote: »

unless some fairness comes in to 2 state owned banks. €300 less i can spend on the local ecomony.

Do you think that 300 quid can be magiced out of thin air? If you want to pay 300 less in your mortgage, someone else has to pick up the bill. Any argument that this "will help the economy as people will have more to spend" is horse manure.

That couple in Killiney have done wonders for the debate on mortgage forgiveness - they've finished off any chance of a blanket deal.

hmmm

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Well if you dont do anything people will just walk away and leave the keys in the letterbox. People took the advice of the gov to buy..

What about those several million Irish people who took personal responsibility and didn't buy a property they couldn't afford? Since when do you take orders from the Irish government?

Besides, a read through threads on boards.ie in the accommodation forum from 2006 should tell you that greed and the Irish addiction to owning property was the predominant thread, not what the government was saying.

southsiderosie

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

The gov has to get their act together and put pressure on the ECB to write off debt. People can't spend in the economy if all their wages are going on paying back debt. It makes sense that people can move on and have money to spend to get the country going again.
The Fiscal Treaty could well be our last real chance as ordinary people to have a say on matters and to dictate policy. After that we will be relying on the gov to put it upto Europe. If we vote YES without getting serious write off we are wasting an opportunity.

Why doesn't the government get its act together and re-write Irish bankruptcy law to make it easier for people to restructure their debt and become whole again financially? This is one regulatory area where the Irish government does have control; I don't understand why it should be looking beyond its borders to deal with the issue.

AltAccount

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

It seems like some mortgage debt will be written off as people simply can't afford to pay their mortgages.

I'm really enjoying this thread, but I can't get past this first sentence. Where are you getting the idea this is likely/imminent?

Brussels Sprout

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

People took the advice of the gov to buy. Should they be made to suck it up now because the gov messed up.

Jesus, would you listen to yourself. That's a childishly pathetic argument. "It wasn't my fault, an older boy told me to do it!"

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Well if you dont do anything people will just walk away and leave the keys in the letterbox.

This isn't America. There's no "jingle mail" get-out-clause here. You can walk away from the house but you can't walk away from the mortgage.

Mr.Micro

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Well if you dont do anything people will just walk away and leave the keys in the letterbox. People took the advice of the gov to buy. Should they be made to suck it up now because the gov messed up. By the way I am not talking about people who bought second houses. They gambled and lost.

An extremely naive and simplistic analysis IMO. The people who purchased houses did so as grown adults and were not forced. Why should they be rewarded because they messed up or because the economy dipped? Where in the world does the State bail out private individuals involving a private mortgage?

Putting the keys in the letterbox still leaves individuals owing the loans. The ECB would be better off giving money to the prudent individuals not good after bad.

Brussels Sprout

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

While we are at it, why not get the government to put pressure on the ECB to give everyone else €50,000 to allow them to "have money to spend to get the country going again"?

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Putting the keys in the letterbox still leaves individuals owing the loans. The ECB would be better off giving money to the prudent individuals not good after bad.

As mad as that sounds there was actually an Australian economist on the Vincent Brown show the other night putting this forward as a solution. He proposed that a bailout fund be used to tackle household debt where a lump sum is given to everyone in the country with the proviso that if you were in debt then you had to use it to pay off your debt. If you weren't in debt you could keep in in cash.
A journalist from one of the Irish papers scoffed at this saying that it would lead to massive inflation. Constantine Gurdiev, who was also on the panel, then replied saying that this was true but that the only way to eliminate massive debt is either through debt restructuring or through inflation.

Clearly loads of holes in that but an interesting proposal all the same.

Tigerandahalf

Yes I saw the programme. His idea was that Irish punts would be printed within the Irish economy but wouldnt be tender outside the Republic of Ireland. The punt would have a 1 to 1 value with the euro. However, what would a business do with all the punts when they wanted to pay for some imported good? The business would be left with a load of punts. This though would force the business to buy Irish and thus perhaps drive inflation and perhaps make a previously competitive company uncompetitive.

Re the posts above: if we allow people to go bankrupt the courts will be clogged up for the next century. The solicitors would be laughing. All this would do is flood the market with property.

hmmm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

He proposed that a bailout fund be used to tackle household debt where a lump sum is given to everyone in the country

Sounds like Bill Bernanke and his old comment about throwing money out of helicopters.

The only problem is who is going to give us this money? It's all very well coming up with creative solutions where you start with a large, free pot of gold, but try explaining to the German taxpayer who is paid less, and pays more taxes than Irish people, why he should be subsidising our gigantic binge.

Tigerandahalf

The German people are being fooled by their leaders. This will continue until the next election in Germany. Then and only then will we see movement from Germany/ECB. There is a great report on the rte website quoting Romano Prodi. It is sense he talks.

southsiderosie

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Re the posts above: if we allow people to go bankrupt the courts will be clogged up for the next century. The solicitors would be laughing. All this would do is flood the market with property.

Not if the process was relatively straightforward. Modern credit-based economies need to have a modern, efficient way to deal with debt, and Ireland clearly fails in this regard (as does Spain, whose debt repayment laws are even more onerous than Ireland's).

As for the market being flooded with property - well, such is life. The market needs to be flooded anyway to wash out prices once and for all. Not all of that inventory is going to be viable in the long-term anyway, especially one-off construction and isolated cul-de-sac developments in the boondocks.

hmmm

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

if we allow people to go bankrupt the courts will be clogged up for the next century. The solicitors would be laughing. All this would do is flood the market with property.

The horror of the thought. All those people who bought houses they couldn't afford would lose the house and have to rent, all those people who didn't buy houses they couldn't afford might now be able to buy a nice place.

Instead you seem to be proposing that those who bought houses they couldn't afford get to stay in that house, while being subsidised by those who lived within their means.

Tigerandahalf

I think a lot of people here are seeing the issue as black or white and that those who bought a house that was overpriced and cant pay should be punished. It is in the interets of the country that people are unshackled from their debt. We need people to be spending their money and not worrying that they are going to be turfed out on the street. What will allowing ordinary people go bankrupt achieve?

southsiderosie

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I think a lot of people here are seeing the issue as black or white and that those who bought a house that was overpriced and cant pay should be punished. It is in the interets of the country that people are unshackled from their debt. We need people to be spending their money and not worrying that they are going to be turfed out on the street. What will allowing ordinary people go bankrupt achieve?

It achieves EXACTLY what you just said: it unshackles people from debt. It isn't a punishment - it is a way for people to discharge their debt in a reasonable way and it lets then get access to credit again in 4-5 years time, rather than 12 years under current law (IIRC). People have to take some personal responsibility for their financial decisions, but they should not be punished for them for eternity - that is the point of bankruptcy.

Tigerandahalf

But does it make sense to put people out of their homes. Whole families being uprooted and forced to move to where? To rent? To go on a council list?
Many people in this position are unemployed through no fault of their own and thus the family may not be able to rent in their area. Surely it makes sense to allow people to stay in their homes until the economy has picked up and people have a fair chance of getting work and paying their mortgage.

southsiderosie

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

But does it make sense to put people out of their homes. Whole families being uprooted and forced to move to where? To rent? To go on a council list?
Many people in this position are unemployed through no fault of their own and thus the family may not be able to rent in their area. Surely it makes sense to allow people to stay in their homes until the economy has picked up and people have a fair chance of getting work and paying their mortgage.

Here's the thing: if the bottom could actually fall out of the market, the same family that is paying a $2500/month mortgage would likely be able to rent a similar house in the area for far less money. This is exactly why many people in the US have simply moved out of the homes they are underwater on and rented a similar house nearby for much less money - they are saving hundreds of dollars a month. But this can't happen when people are still tied to their overvalued homes.

jased10s

hmmm wrote: »

Do you think that 300 quid can be magiced out of thin air? If you want to pay 300 less in your mortgage, someone else has to pick up the bill. Any argument that this "will help the economy as people will have more to spend" is horse manure.

That couple in Killiney have done wonders for the debate on mortgage forgiveness - they've finished off any chance of a blanket deal.

It does not have to be magiced , it's plan robbery , and manure i think not .

AltAccount

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

But does it make sense to put people out of their homes. Whole families being uprooted and forced to move to where? To rent? To go on a council list?
Many people in this position are unemployed through no fault of their own and thus the family may not be able to rent in their area. Surely it makes sense to allow people to stay in their homes until the economy has picked up and people have a fair chance of getting work and paying their mortgage.

People won't be put out of their homes for being in negative equity, only for not being able to pay their contractual mortgage payments.
I'm not sure how debt forgiveness affects the people in your post above, surely what they need is forbearance until they're back on their feet. Why should the amount they owe change?

carm

Deleted User wrote: »

here is a fair question:

What about renters who are also as you state "genuine people" who can no longer afford to pay their current level of rent?

They apply for the extremely generous rent allowances on offer through the HSE.

green123

Anybody who can't afford to pay their mortgage should have their house repossessed as per the agreement that they signed up to.

That is the contract that they agreed to.

A deal is a deal.

Simple as that.

Nobody gets made homeless. The house is transferred over to the local authority or council and the previous owners start paying rent or get rent allowance.

StudentDad

Moral Hazard on toast please and some tea.

SD

golden lane

green123 wrote: »

Anybody who can't afford to pay their mortgage should have their house repossessed as per the agreement that they signed up to.

That is the contract that they agreed to.

A deal is a deal.

Simple as that.

Nobody gets made homeless. The house is transferred over to the local authority or council and the previous owners start paying rent or get rent allowance.

who would pay the money that was borrowed to buy the house...????

Farmer Pudsey

green123 wrote: »

Anybody who can't afford to pay their mortgage should have their house repossessed as per the agreement that they signed up to.

That is the contract that they agreed to.

A deal is a deal.

Simple as that.

Nobody gets made homeless. The house is transferred over to the local authority or council and the previous owners start paying rent or get rent allowance.

This is not the issue if most people that have huge morgtages issue could give back the keys and walk away this would happen
However unlike in the US where if you cannot pay back your morgtage you can send the keys back to the banks ( I believe it is call somthing like the jingle post) and move on rent for a while move States and start again. In Ireland if your house is repossed and the house will not cover the morgtage you are left with personal debt which then throws them back on the state.
Also if the banks knew that this could have happened 10 years ago they might not have been as free with money.In the US morgtage are nonrecourse ie they are on the house alone.

Bannasidhe

carm wrote: »

They apply for the extremely generous rent allowances on offer through the HSE.

So rather then the State acting to help people stay in their mortgaged homes we should have a situation where people are evicted and the State then subsidises their rent?

Plus - not everyone is 'entitled' to rent allowance.

NakedNNettles

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I think a lot of people here are seeing the issue as black or white and that those who bought a house that was overpriced and cant pay should be punished. It is in the interets of the country that people are unshackled from their debt. We need people to be spending their money and not worrying that they are going to be turfed out on the street. What will allowing ordinary people go bankrupt achieve?

Unfortunately this is the problem thats landed the country in the current mess, some people out spending left, right and centre on shi*e like cash grows on trees or something.

If they got a bailout, what's to stop them repeating all the same mistakes and landing the country in an even worse state.

I don't buy your sympathy story. Life isn't called a 'rat race' for nothing you know.

Sponge Bob

NakedNNettles wrote: »

Unfortunately this is the problem thats landed the country in the current mess, some people out spending left, right and centre on shi*e like cash grows on trees or something.

If they got a bailout, what's to stop them repeating all the same mistakes and landing the country in an even worse state.

Hopefully we have the short legal bankruptcy procedure in place by years end and they can process themselves through that if they are in serious trouble.

The rest of us will carry on paying our bills, same as ever. :cool:

bbam

How about a debt for equity swap? Would be a better option than debt forgiveness.
A fund to reduce debt for those who are in trouble but. You have to sign over equity in your home at say 10% less than market value ( for a 20% bailout you sign over 30% of your equity )To be recovered on the future when the property changes hands.
The big problem with any scheme is where does this magical pot of money come from?

BFDCH.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

An extremely naive and simplistic analysis IMO. The people who purchased houses did so as grown adults and were not forced. Why should they be rewarded because they messed up or because the economy dipped? Where in the world does the State bail out private individuals involving a private mortgage?

Putting the keys in the letterbox still leaves individuals owing the loans. The ECB would be better off giving money to the prudent individuals not good after bad.

Possibly in the same country that bailed out those foreign institutions that made a bad investment in this country.

Many people in the country did buy because they believed what the government and media were preaching at the time (prices were going to keep going up and so they needed to buy ASAP). You should be able to believe the advice coming from a govenrment, you shouldn't have to second guess them all the time, they are elected and paid to guide the country. how was the average punter to know that they were a bunch of power mad clowns and gombeen men when the media was telling everyone that would listen what a good job they were doing.

the country would be better off people were allowed to hand the houses back the bank who own them. It'lll allow the house prices to fall to their natural level rather than being kept artifically high.
The people that walk away from their loans wouldn't be able to get another loan except at very high rates, so this should be enough punishment for them.

vard

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

It seems like some mortgage debt will be written off as people simply can't afford to pay their mortgages. Many genuine people are unemployed. So what will happen? Will those who were prudent lose out? Or could some other scheme be done to make it more fair to everyone?
For example, if a person had a 400,000 mortgage. The gov/banks agree to write off 100,000. The gov/banks however take a 1/4 stake in the house. Thus the person is not getting off completely. If the person sold the house 10 years down the road the gov would get 1/4 of the price.
Would this be fair and possible?

Let's keep this reasonable as I'm sure there could be strong feelings on both sides.

interest rates.... that's what needs to be frozen. The debt should be capped, they should say okay you owe us 200000 - discuss a reasonable long term period to pay it back interest free.

It's not the debt that's the problem... it's interest rates. That is what is crippling people and leaving so much of the country in an impossible situation from which there is no escape... but that's the whole idea if interest rates anyway isn't it? Keep people indebted for life...

beeftotheheels

BFDCH. wrote: »

Many people in the country did buy because they believed what the government and media were preaching at the time (prices were going to keep going up and so they needed to buy ASAP). You should be able to believe the advice coming from a govenrment, you shouldn't have to second guess them all the time, they are elected and paid to guide the country. how was the average punter to know that they were a bunch of power mad clowns and gombeen men when the media was telling everyone that would listen what a good job they were doing.

the country would be better off people were allowed to hand the houses back the bank who own them.

I'd be in favor of this with one minor amendment. They also have to surrender their right to vote in any further Irish elections.

If they were so misled by politicians, and so incapable of judging politicians or electing responsible ones, they should henceforth surrender their right to vote and leave that to those of us who didn't get into such a mess.

Otherwise, they should live with the consequences of their actions.

mkdon05

It always amazes me when one of these threads crop up.
I never knew Ireland was producing so many economic experts back in 2004-2007 that were able to predict how it was going to pan out. Fair play to you all deciding not to buy a home when you were in a position to do so, but decided to rent instead. Bravo.

NakedNNettles

mkdon05 wrote: »

It always amazes me when one of these threads crop up.
I never knew Ireland was producing so many economic experts back in 2004-2007 that were able to predict how it was going to pan out. Fair play to you all deciding not to buy a home when you were in a position to do so, but decided to rent instead. Bravo.

It wasn't a difficult decision for me as I was priced out of the market what with the banks firing out money left, right and centre for lads wanting to boxrooms at 500k.

Christ I had some laugh when I got to Australia late '06 and saw what I could get for that kind of dough.

:pac: