Getting out of negative equity - regain your freedom! Interested? [Mad thread]

ChicoMendez

Hi there

60k people in mortgage arrears they say...

What would you do to get out of negative equity ? If someone offered you a way of getting rid of your house for the price you paid for it (legally) what lengths would you be willing to go to ?
Would you be willing to put in a few days/weeks/months of work ?

Dodgy you may think - no not really - I just have an idea to try to get about 30-ish families / homeowners out of the dirty situations they find themselves in...
I'm currently talking to a solicitor to see about the viability of this idea and how it would work legally. I have the website ready to go etc.


Tnx

dvpower

ChicoMendez wrote: »

Dodgy you may think - no not really - I just have an idea to try to get about 30-ish families / homeowners out of the dirty situations they find themselves in...
I'm currently talking to a solicitor to see about the viability of this idea and how it would work legally. I have the website ready to go etc.

Sounds very dodgy.
Are you going to be telling people here what the idea is or do they have to sign up and pay your fee first?

mikemac1

So are you are you going to hold conferences in hotels around Ireland?

People pay to get in and the only person improving their finances is you

ted1

Negative equity and mortgage arrears are two very different issues.

ChicoMendez

dvpower wrote: »

Sounds very dodgy.
Are you going to be telling people here what the idea is or do they have to sign up and pay your fee first?

absolutely NO FEE ! i want to finish my discussion with solicitors first before i share the idea

ChicoMendez

ted1 wrote: »

Negative equity and mortgage arrears are two very different issues.

true different - but im sure EVERYONE without exception would jump at getting out of either ?

keith16

How is negative equity "a dirty situation"?

ChicoMendez

mikemac1 wrote: »

So are you are you going to hold conferences in hotels around Ireland?

People pay to get in and the only person improving their finances is you

nope - what i would get out of this project is escaping negative equity and it would only happen if we all 30 achieve the same thing

ChicoMendez

keith16 wrote: »

How is negative equity "a dirty situation"?

a dirty situation
an unfortunate situation

use whatever words you want

do a search in the forums and see the unfortunate circumstances of people as they tell their stories - don't seem to be to be a rosy situation

keith16

ChicoMendez wrote: »

a dirty situation
an unfortunate situation

use whatever words you want

do a search in the forums and see the unfortunate circumstances of people as they tell their stories - don't seem to be to be a rosy situation

I know plenty of people who are in negative equity but could not give a fuck. Because they view their house as a home and not an investment. They have a roof over their head and they are meeting their repayments.

Honest to christ, what is peoples fascination with property in this country? The term "property ladder" that was so prevalent in the boom has now been replaced with "negative equity" -it's like there has to be always some sort of burden put on people.

Paulw

keith16 wrote: »

I know plenty of people who are in negative equity but could not give a fuck. Because they view their house as a home and not an investment.

Exactly. Rumour has it that I am in negative equity. But, so what? Is it causing me problems? No. Is it causing me sleepless nights? No. Is it causing me to worry? No.

This is my home. I am paying my mortgage and like where I live.

If I ever have to move, then, and only then, will I be concerned if it is in negative equity or not. Like the vast majority of people, I have a home, and that's all I need.

djimi

keith16 wrote: »

Honest to christ, what is peoples fascination with property in this country? The term "property ladder" that was so prevalent in the boom has now been replaced with "negative equity" -it's like there has to be always some sort of burden put on people.

Its because too many people bought into the notion of a property ladder; they felt that they had to buy something, anything, to get their "foot on the ladder" with it only being a view to being a short term purchase rather than a home they were going to be in for years. These people are now stuck in a house that is too small for their needs, and dont stand a chance of selling it as it is worth half what they owe on it.

Whoever came up with the concept of a property ladder should be taken out and publically flogged. Such a fundementally stupid concept that has screwed so many people over.

Zamboni

ChicoMendez wrote: »

i want to finish my discussion with solicitors first before i share the idea

Great.
We will be here waiting.
With baited breath.

socco

ChicoMendez wrote: »

If someone offered you a way of getting rid of your house for the price you paid for it (legally) what lengths would you be willing to go to ?

you sir, are either a genius... or this has to be dodgy! Time shall tell which

silja

It's kinda hard to give you an opinion when you won't tell us anything about the scheme.

JohnFalstaff

- Negative Equity
- 30 people
- ????
- Profit!!!

The barber of chewbacca

ChicoMendez wrote: »

Hi there

60k people in mortgage arrears they say...

What would you do to get out of negative equity ? If someone offered you a way of getting rid of your house for the price you paid for it (legally) what lengths would you be willing to go to ?
Would you be willing to put in a few days/weeks/months of work ?

Dodgy you may think - no not really - I just have an idea to try to get about 30-ish families / homeowners out of the dirty situations they find themselves in...
I'm currently talking to a solicitor to see about the viability of this idea and how it would work legally. I have the website ready to go etc.


Tnx

Could this idea be something akin to a pyramid scheme?

Procrastastudy

ChicoMendez wrote: »

absolutely NO FEE ! i want to finish my discussion with solicitors first before i share the idea

So why start a thread on it? :rolleyes:

I know something you don't know... na na na na na :pac:

djimi

ChicoMendez wrote: »

absolutely NO FEE !

the world wonders

Does this plan involve freemen on the land, flags with gold fringes, admiralty law, signatures in green ink and legal fictions named in ALL CAPS?

If so I want in!

beaner88

the world wonders wrote: »

Does this plan involve freemen on the land, flags with gold fringes, admiralty law, signatures in green ink and legal fictions named in ALL CAPS?

If so I want in!

Lol some new ones there I had not heard before. I'd love to meet a freeman and get them to take me through their beliefs.

murphaph

ChicoMendez wrote: »

Hi there

60k people in mortgage arrears they say...

What would you do to get out of negative equity ? If someone offered you a way of getting rid of your house for the price you paid for it (legally) what lengths would you be willing to go to ?
Would you be willing to put in a few days/weeks/months of work ?

Dodgy you may think - no not really - I just have an idea to try to get about 30-ish families / homeowners out of the dirty situations they find themselves in...
I'm currently talking to a solicitor to see about the viability of this idea and how it would work legally. I have the website ready to go etc.


Tnx

How about paying back the money you borrowed of your own free will and getting on with living in your home?

Senna

ChicoMendez wrote: »

Would you be willing to put in a few days/weeks/months of work ?

Jesus this just blew my mind.....wait for it......you work and earn money and use that money to pay off the NE or arrers.
Chirst OP why didn't I think of this before.

riclad

IF you are in ne ,its not a disaster if you are single ,on a good wage and happy to continue living where you are.I know someone bought 1bed apartment ,i don,t think she cares its in ne,by 40 per cent , as far as i know.
it,s a lovely apartment in a nice quiet area.

AT some point the irish banks may make it easy to transfer a ne loan, eg if you are on a good wage ,and want to buy a larger house ,eg move from a one bed to a 3bed dwelling.
The banks were lending recklessly,i believe in some cases they should be made to write off x amount,
especially if the person sells the house.
my friend sold btl house 3bed ,bank wrote off 20k, house was sold for 80k.
HER lawyer said thats,it case closed ,they are not asking you for another cent.House was empty for 2 years,she told bank can.t afford to pay you,
did not pay 1cent since january 2010.
was offered 80k, in march 2010 ,bank blocked the sale ,said offer too low.

MAYBE banks are doing deals ,write offs now,on ne btl house sales, but its not in the papers ,not reported in papers unless there,s a court case.
she rented btl for 9 years, had to put in about 110 euros on top of rent income ,to cover mortgage,each month.
i think banks would write off x amount ,if you put house up for sale,maybe 20 per cent ,if you paid 200k, house is worth 100k,
20 per cent would not make much difference.

bobbysands81

keith16 wrote: »

I know plenty of people who are in negative equity but could not give a fuck. Because they view their house as a home and not an investment. They have a roof over their head and they are meeting their repayments.

Honest to christ, what is peoples fascination with property in this country? The term "property ladder" that was so prevalent in the boom has now been replaced with "negative equity" -it's like there has to be always some sort of burden put on people.

I never understood how negative equity could effect someone until recently.

Someone very close to me had to move out of Dublin in order to keep her job. She now has to rent a home in her new county. As such she has to pay the second home tax and as her home in Dublin is now considered an investment property she was put on a higher mortgage interest rate by the bank. She has to rent out her place in Dublin and pay PRTB fees, management fees etc...

The rent she takes in from the property doesn't come close to covering the mortgage and all other costs yet she is taxed on this rental income as if its normal income from a job... even though she's losing a substantial amount of money a month. The PRSI announcement in the Budget means she has to pay even more a month for the privilege of losing money.

She can't sell the place as the bank won't let her due to being in negative equity and she can't afford to keep renting it out as its costing her a couple of hundred euro a month.

That's what's meant by the negative equity trap.

D3PO

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I never understood how negative equity could effect someone until recently.

Someone very close to me had to move out of Dublin in order to keep her job. She now has to rent a home in her new county. As such she has to pay the second home tax and as her home in Dublin is now considered an investment property she was put on a higher mortgage interest rate by the bank. She has to rent out her place in Dublin and pay PRTB fees, management fees etc...

The rent she takes in from the property doesn't come close to covering the mortgage and all other costs yet she is taxed on this rental income as if its normal income from a job... even though she's losing a substantial amount of money a month. The PRSI announcement in the Budget means she has to pay even more a month for the privilege of losing money.

She can't sell the place as the bank won't let her due to being in negative equity and she can't afford to keep renting it out as its costing her a couple of hundred euro a month.

That's what's meant by the negative equity trap.

gotta wonder how close to true this is and how much is exaggerated by your friend. God knows how much of this country likes to exaggerate.

1) Shes have had to pay the management fees even if she lived in Dublin still, and she isnt paying them on her rental property so its moot.

2) Shes entitled to rental tax credits which will offset some if only a little of her extra expenses, add to that that her rent in a diff county will be less than in Dublin that also offsets some of these extra costs.

3) I dont believe her bank has put up her interest rate. I know lots of people in similar situations and none of them have had this happen

4) She could go interest only on her mortgage. 75% of which is then deductible when filing a tax return add in 12.5% depreciation on the furniture etc in her original home, and this paltry rental income you indicate shes getting and there's no way she has taxable liability

The negative equity trap only exists if you cannot afford the mortgage, your friend doesnt fit that category at all. He / she might believe they are in a worse off situation but the laws of probability are that they arent and are just having a moan and exaggerating their point to make it.

Just taking some very basic headline figures to show an example

Mortgage €1,500 a month (Interest €1000 capital €500)
Rent Received €800
Rent in new property down the country €600

In that situation €750 of the monthly interest is tax deductable leaving €50 which would be taxable minus expenses depreciation, PRTB fees, accountancy fees etc etc etc. Basically no tax payable to revenue

At the same time your friend would have an outlay of €600 for their rent & either go interest only and that be it or pay the capital portion off their house aswell (which makes no sense when you can deduct 75% of the interest your paying) as you would want to keep that interest amount up to get the most relief possible.

Now thats very rough but example but the fact is people who have had to move out and rent due to their job moving are not impacted by NE at all (unless moving from a low cost rental area to a high cost area like Leitrim to Dublin or something)

the people caught are the people who have lost their jobs, not your friend despite how much they try and convince themselves they are impacted

Del2005

riclad wrote: »

IF you are in ne ,its not a disaster if you are single ,on a good wage and happy to continue living where you are.I know someone bought 1bed apartment ,i don,t think she cares its in ne,by 40 per cent , as far as i know.
it,s a lovely apartment in a nice quiet area.

AT some point the irish banks may make it easy to transfer a ne loan, eg if you are on a good wage ,and want to buy a larger house ,eg move from a one bed to a 3bed dwelling.
The banks were lending recklessly,i believe in some cases they should be made to write off x amount,
especially if the person sells the house.
my friend sold btl house 3bed ,bank wrote off 20k, house was sold for 80k.
HER lawyer said thats,it case closed ,they are not asking you for another cent.House was empty for 2 years,she told bank can.t afford to pay you,
did not pay 1cent since january 2010.
was offered 80k, in march 2010 ,bank blocked the sale ,said offer too low.

MAYBE banks are doing deals ,write offs now,on ne btl house sales, but its not in the papers ,not reported in papers unless there,s a court case.
she rented btl for 9 years, had to put in about 110 euros on top of rent income ,to cover mortgage,each month.
i think banks would write off x amount ,if you put house up for sale,maybe 20 per cent ,if you paid 200k, house is worth 100k,
20 per cent would not make much difference.

Can someone please translate?

[Jackass]

ChicoMendez wrote: »

absolutely NO FEE ! i want to finish my discussion with solicitors first before i share the idea

Hi everyone.

I just wish to give you a heads up. I will be opening a thread in this forum tomorrow to let you know that I'm starting an entrpreneur course on Monday. In 6 - 8 weeks I will finish and have my business idea and then I will come back to the thread then and let you know what it is.

Let me know if you're interested and / or want to invest.

NO PM'S PLEASE! I'M EXPECTING A LARGE RESPONSE AND CAN NOT REPLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.

*warning: values of investments may fall as well as rise. vendor can take no liability to loss of investment, reputation and / or identity. investment is free followed by contracted investment schedule for a post-determined time frame. funds can not be redrawn from investment prior to descretion of investor and penalties will apply

Cuddlesworth

In theory there is a few things you could do.

If you were to gather the support of 3,000 mortgage holders with a average value of 100,000 left on their mortgage(yes I know that's low) who have this mortgage with a single institution.

Organize a strategic default with all 3,000 people for the renegotiation of their debt. There would have to be a awareness that the bank may try to initiate proceedings against a couple of people to try set a example.

Keep it out of the media but hold the threat of the media over their heads in negotiations. The chance of copy cats would be high as well as the way the markets would react if the news got out. But you don't want to let this get out, once its in the press they will never let any debt off. Its a final screw you if they fail to negotiate.

Do the maths. 3k mortgages at a average debt value of 100k is 300 million in debt. Assuming 30 years of payments, a single month payments withheld would be close to 850k in revenue lost on average. This would cripple our already crippled institutions. And if the bank wanted to regain the houses they would have to initiate proceedings against each policy holder individually at great cost and time before trying to recover the remain debt off each person after. They do not want to do this.

Most important thing is to remain unified and not to be greedy. An offer of 10% on 100k is not to be sniffed at.


Never going to happen though. People just don't have that sort of organisation or resolve in large numbers.

Senna

Where do you think this €100m write off would come from?
No one was forced to take on debt, if you made a bad decision then you have to accept consequences. If anyone is really struggling then you make smaller repayments and provide for your family first, but that debt is still your responsibility. Mass right off's is not the way to go, the debt just falls back on the general public, people have to accept the mistakes they made.

Zamboni

Del2005 wrote: »

Can someone please translate?

ricman/riclad is an awesome part of the furniture here.
Nobody translates for him.
Think of him as an old uncle in the corner

the_syco

Del2005 wrote: »

Can someone please translate?

English must not be his/your first language, so I'll rewrite it slightly differently.

If you're in Negative Equity, it's not a disaster if you're single, on a good wage and happy to continue living where you are. I know someone who bought a one bedroom apartment, but I don't think she cares that it's in Negative Equity by 40%, as far as i know. It's a lovely apartment in a nice quiet area.

At some point the Irish banks may make it easy to transfer a NE loan, eg; if you're on a good wage , and want to buy a larger house, eg; move from a one bed to a three bed dwelling.

The banks had been lending recklessly, and I believe in some cases they should be made to write off x amount, especially if the person sells the house.
My friend sold a "buy to let" three bedroom house, bank wrote off 20k, house was sold for 80k.

Her lawyer said "that's it case closed", and that they (the bank) did not ask them for another cent. "The house was empty for 2 years", she told her bank "and I can't afford to pay you", and had not paid a cent since January 2010. She had been offered 80k in March 2010, but the bank blocked the sale saying the offer was too low.

Maybe banks are doing deals, write offs now, on Buy to Let (BTL) houses that are in NE, but it's not in the papers, and not reported in papers unless there's a court case.
She rented the BTL for 9 years, and had to put in about 110 euros on top of the rent income , to cover mortgage, each month.
I think banks would write off x amount, if you put house up for sale,maybe 20%, if you paid 200k, as if house is worth 100k, 20% would not make much difference.

StillWaters

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

In theory there is a few things you could do.

If you were to gather the support of 3,000 mortgage holders with a average value of 100,000 left on their mortgage(yes I know that's low) who have this mortgage with a single institution.

Organize a strategic default with all 3,000 people for the renegotiation of their debt. There would have to be a awareness that the bank may try to initiate proceedings against a couple of people to try set a example.

Keep it out of the media but hold the threat of the media over their heads in negotiations. The chance of copy cats would be high as well as the way the markets would react if the news got out. But you don't want to let this get out, once its in the press they will never let any debt off. Its a final screw you if they fail to negotiate.

Do the maths. 3k mortgages at a average debt value of 100k is 300 million in debt. Assuming 30 years of payments, a single month payments withheld would be close to 850k in revenue lost on average. This would cripple our already crippled institutions. And if the bank wanted to regain the houses they would have to initiate proceedings against each policy holder individually at great cost and time before trying to recover the remain debt off each person after. They do not want to do this.

Most important thing is to remain unified and not to be greedy. An offer of 10% on 100k is not to be sniffed at.


Never going to happen though. People just don't have that sort of organisation or resolve in large numbers.

Not bad, I was thinking some sort of housewap scheme where owners can trade up or down with others.

What timing though, with the personal insolvency bill through both houses today.

Zamboni

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

In theory there is a few things you could do.

If you were to gather the support of 3,000 mortgage holders with a average value of 100,000 left on their mortgage(yes I know that's low) who have this mortgage with a single institution.

Organize a strategic default with all 3,000 people for the renegotiation of their debt. There would have to be a awareness that the bank may try to initiate proceedings against a couple of people to try set a example.

Keep it out of the media but hold the threat of the media over their heads in negotiations. The chance of copy cats would be high as well as the way the markets would react if the news got out. But you don't want to let this get out, once its in the press they will never let any debt off. Its a final screw you if they fail to negotiate.

Do the maths. 3k mortgages at a average debt value of 100k is 300 million in debt. Assuming 30 years of payments, a single month payments withheld would be close to 850k in revenue lost on average. This would cripple our already crippled institutions. And if the bank wanted to regain the houses they would have to initiate proceedings against each policy holder individually at great cost and time before trying to recover the remain debt off each person after. They do not want to do this.

Most important thing is to remain unified and not to be greedy. An offer of 10% on 100k is not to be sniffed at.


Never going to happen though. People just don't have that sort of organisation or resolve in large numbers.

This would actually work in theory. But you are right in pointing out that it would be like herding cats trying to acheive it.
I could see smaller groups of upper/professional classes in financial trouble mangaing to pull it off nice and quietly.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4qWJKXMWXw

ChRoMe

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

In theory there is a few things you could do.

If you were to gather the support of 3,000 mortgage holders with a average value of 100,000 left on their mortgage(yes I know that's low) who have this mortgage with a single institution.

Organize a strategic default with all 3,000 people for the renegotiation of their debt. There would have to be a awareness that the bank may try to initiate proceedings against a couple of people to try set a example.

Keep it out of the media but hold the threat of the media over their heads in negotiations. The chance of copy cats would be high as well as the way the markets would react if the news got out. But you don't want to let this get out, once its in the press they will never let any debt off. Its a final screw you if they fail to negotiate.

Do the maths. 3k mortgages at a average debt value of 100k is 300 million in debt. Assuming 30 years of payments, a single month payments withheld would be close to 850k in revenue lost on average. This would cripple our already crippled institutions. And if the bank wanted to regain the houses they would have to initiate proceedings against each policy holder individually at great cost and time before trying to recover the remain debt off each person after. They do not want to do this.

Most important thing is to remain unified and not to be greedy. An offer of 10% on 100k is not to be sniffed at.


Never going to happen though. People just don't have that sort of organisation or resolve in large numbers.

Thats a cute idea However you are correct the organisation makes it unfeasible.

Reminds me a lot of the ,very effective, Saul Alinsky tactics used in the states.

donalg1

djimi wrote: »

Its because too many people bought into the notion of a property ladder; they felt that they had to buy something, anything, to get their "foot on the ladder" with it only being a view to being a short term purchase rather than a home they were going to be in for years. These people are now stuck in a house that is too small for their needs, and dont stand a chance of selling it as it is worth half what they owe on it.

Whoever came up with the concept of a property ladder should be taken out and publically flogged. Such a fundementally stupid concept that has screwed so many people over.

But sure thats their own fault, they took a risk in the hope of making a fortune and it didnt work out for them, are we supposed to feel sorry for them now?

fricatus

donalg1 wrote: »

But sure thats their own fault, they took a risk in the hope of making a fortune and it didnt work out for them, are we supposed to feel sorry for them now?

I'm in negative equity, although still well able to afford the mortgage, and the way I see it is that the blame goes three ways:

- it's the government's fault for not properly regulating the housing market and allowing a consumer credit bubble. They could have imposed a maximum LTV of 85% and brought in property taxes at the stroke of a pen in 2003/2004 to cool the housing market, which was an obvious bubble to anyone whose job it is to oversee these things, like the DoF and the Central Bank.

- it's the bank's fault for lending a Joe Soap like me that amount of money for a house that was way overvalued. They could have run their business sensibly and then they wouldn't have needed to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

- it's my fault for not having a degree in economics, because let's face it, if the government say it's OK and the bank are willing to lend me the money, what reason do I have to think they're wrong?

Yet I'm supposed to pick up the tab 100%? How about the blame be shared out three ways? Say someone is €120k in negative equity. How about the government pay over €40k for their mistakes, the bank take the hit of another €40k for theirs, and the homeowner takes the hit on the remaining €40k? Remember they've already lost their deposit...

Sounds fair to me...

DoraDelite

Doesn't sound fair to me as in reality the Government and the Banks are the taxpayer.

hmmm

- it's the government's fault for not properly regulating the housing market and allowing a consumer credit bubble.

It's not the government's responsibility to ensure that you only make a profit when you buy property. No different to pensions, shares, land etc.

which was an obvious bubble to anyone whose job it is to oversee these things, like the DoF and the Central Bank.

If it was so obvious why did you buy? The people of this country voted in governments that perpetrated the property bubble - including yourself
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52865046&postcount=12

- it's the bank's fault for lending a Joe Soap like me that amount of money for a house that was way overvalued.

It's not the banks problem if you decide to spend too much on something. It's their problem to make sure you can repay your debt, and you can as you've admitted.

- it's my fault for not having a degree in economics, because let's face it, if the government say it's OK and the bank are willing to lend me the money, what reason do I have to think they're wrong?

Clearly you accept no responsibility yourself, yet you seem to think that everyone else who didn't buy a property at the prices you paid should now have to take on your debts. No thanks.

I see also you're already thinking of buying a second house, so what makes you so certain that prices are correct today? You say in that post that you'd have no scope for saving if you have to pay both mortgages, so are you not over-extending yourself if you can't rent your old house? Who would you like to bail you out if this goes wrong also?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79092244&postcount=1

beaner88

You can bet if you made a killing on a property you'd be the first to say you did your sums and the investment made sense. Investment goes bad and all the people are claiming they could never do maths and the big bad banks took advantage of them.

the_syco

fricatus wrote: »

I'm in negative equity

So you bought a small place with the attention of selling it for more, and getting a bigger place? Joe Soap wanted a loan for stupid amount of money, got it, and is now complaining that he got it?

But oh no, you were not able to sell it for a profit as the crash happened. So like any gambler, you'll have to suck it up and get on with paying back what you owe. The banks are only in debt because people think they don't have to pay what they borrowed.

And how do I know you were planning on doing this? I know because it's only called negative equity if you planned on selling anytime soon. Otherwise it's called your home.

Zamboni

fricatus wrote: »

- it's my fault for not having a degree in economics, because let's face it, if the government say it's OK and the bank are willing to lend me the money, what reason do I have to think they're wrong?

You don't need a degree in economics to know the government does not have your best interests at heart.

murphaph

fricatus wrote: »

if the government say it's OK and the bank are willing to lend me the money, what reason do I have to think they're wrong?

Your own common sense as my dad used to say.

There was a distinct lack of it about during the Celtic Pyramid days, but some of us kept ours and don't feel much inclined towards picking up 1/3 of your mistake (in reality up to 2/3 as the bank may be state owned).

I bought a flat in Berlin. The building now has had 2 cases of dry rot detected and I've had to fork out an additional 5k to the building fund to pay (with the other owners) for the repairs to the structural members in the floors affected. Can I have some money from the taxpayer please? It wasn't my fault after all (surveyor didn't, nor couldn't have found the problems at time of purchase), so why should I pay?

ted1

fricatus wrote: »

I'm in negative equity, although still well able to afford the mortgage, and the way I see it is that the blame goes three ways:

- it's the government's fault for not properly regulating the housing market and allowing a consumer credit bubble. They could have imposed a maximum LTV of 85% and brought in property taxes at the stroke of a pen in 2003/2004 to cool the housing market, which was an obvious bubble to anyone whose job it is to oversee these things, like the DoF and the Central Bank.

- it's the bank's fault for lending a Joe Soap like me that amount of money for a house that was way overvalued. They could have run their business sensibly and then they wouldn't have needed to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

- it's my fault for not having a degree in economics, because let's face it, if the government say it's OK and the bank are willing to lend me the money, what reason do I have to think they're wrong?

Yet I'm supposed to pick up the tab 100%? How about the blame be shared out three ways? Say someone is €120k in negative equity. How about the government pay over €40k for their mistakes, the bank take the hit of another €40k for theirs, and the homeowner takes the hit on the remaining €40k? Remember they've already lost their deposit...

Sounds fair to me...

Why should the government pick up the bill for those on negative equity? It's only the value of the house that's affected not the cash in ones pocket continue living in the property you original choose to buy, problem solved.

fricatus

Jesus lads, fair amount of vitriol there. Nice to see solidarity alive and well in this country! :mad:

With apologies to the OP for derailing the thread, I'll just address a few of the points and then bow out, because I've better things to be doing:

- I'm not accepting responsibility for my actions:
Wrong, I'm saddled with 100% of the responsibility of sorting my situation out, whereas in my view there were three parties who made mistakes - and the two who had armies of highly paid advisors and economists at their disposal refuse to make any amends. If you had read my earlier post at all, you would see that I'm prepared to accept my share of the overall responsibility.

- If the bubble was so obvious, why did I buy?
It wasn't obvious to me, but it was obvious to David McWilliams, Morgan Kelly, the Economist, etc. Why didn't the banks and government pay heed to them? I have my day job to do, and I do it well. Their day job is to know what's going on in the economy, but they fcuked it up big time - yet they walk away with fat pensions - paid for by my taxes! You couldn't make this sh1t up!

- I was "gambling" on being able to sell my current place and buy a bigger place:

Jesus, you'd swear I took the mortgage money and put it on the 2.45 at Kempton! :rolleyes:

I presume many of your parents own or owned their own homes. They probably saved up for five years to afford a deposit, started small, furnished it bit by bit, suffered high mortgage payments every month, and then when they had reduced the mortgage enough, they sold and bought a bigger place, maybe when the family expanded.

Were they "gamblers"? Is it not a reasonable expectation in a stable country, to buy your own home, and to be able to sell it on so as to buy a bigger place when your family expands?

- Why am I buying again?
Because our family has expanded and we are tripping over stuff in the house we have, and we need to move. I can buy a nice place now for less than the cost of renting.

- Couldn't you just rent?
Sure, but then what if the landlord wanted to sell up? Then we're moving house again. And then in 25 years' time when we retire, will our pension cover the rent? At least this way the house will be paid off, and we'll only have to worry about the property tax, repairs, etc.

All these people promoting a renting culture have to remember that we will need to have the sort of laws they have in Germany before we should even consider such a cultural shift. Rents here are basically determined by the market, so what do you do when you're 75 and the rent is rising at twice the rate your pension is?

And if people now in their 20s in this country decide en masse not to buy their own home, what level will the state pension have to be at so that they can afford to continue renting a house of the standard they've become accustomed to?

This is a serious question that needs answering, because traditionally people here bought their own homes, and the pension could be at a level that didn't really have to take accommodation costs into consideration. If you decide to rent all your life, you will have to make sure you can afford it in retirement, but from what I can see, few people are making any provision either for their accommodation in retirement, or the retirement itself.

Zamboni wrote: »

You don't need a degree in economics to know the government does not have your best interests at heart.

Well you got that right!

Zamboni

fricatus wrote: »

And if people now in their 20s in this country decide en masse not to buy their own home, what level will the state pension have to be at so that they can afford to continue renting a house of the standard they've become accustomed to?

This is a serious question that needs answering, because traditionally people here bought their own homes, and the pension could be at a level that didn't really have to take accommodation costs into consideration. If you decide to rent all your life, you will have to make sure you can afford it in retirement, but from what I can see, few people are making any provision either for their accommodation in retirement, or the retirement itself.

There is definitely a whole new time bomb in the making - people who are renting and cannot afford to make provisions for future accomodation (+ likely reduction in level of state pension).
The key point I've learned from the past decade is that nobody, absolutely nobody/state/organisation should be relied on.

Every individual in this state should;

• understand personal responbility
• evaluate the lifestyle they wish to have
• assess the means of acquiriing that lifestyle through education and labour/enterprise
• contingency planning to maintain that lifestyle

If this is not at an acceptable level, then migration should be the next port of call (no pun intended).

jmayo

fricatus wrote: »

Jesus lads, fair amount of vitriol there. Nice to see solidarity alive and well in this country! :mad:

Ehh I always love how people now speak about solidarity when they are broke or in deep financial trouble and they want to share their losses.
It is like how particular organisations (banks, car makers, insuyrance companies) became interested in socialism and getting the state involved when they were staring at massive losses.
This goes for Ireland, Germany, Britain and even the bastion of capitalism without state involvement, the US.

When people were making money I don't recall them offering to share the proceeds. :rolleyes:

fricatus wrote: »

- If the bubble was so obvious, why did I buy?
It wasn't obvious to me, but it was obvious to David McWilliams, Morgan Kelly, the Economist, etc.

Ehh a fair few of us non economists, non TV pundits actually saw it, but we were dismissed as cranks by both the powers that be and people like yourself who wanted to get on the property ladder and foresaw themselves trading up in a few years.

fricatus wrote: »

Why didn't the banks and government pay heed to them?

Because the banks/bankers were making loads of money and that is what their game is about.
For the government it was about ensuring the trough was well filled so that they could ensure re election by letting more have greater access to it.

They are both effectively sales people who ensure their jobs and salaries by selling you sh** you often don't need for money that you don't have.
Call me cynical, but when are people going to wise up that the only one that ultimately has your best interests at heart is yourself.

fricatus wrote: »

I have my day job to do, and I do it well. Their day job is to know what's going on in the economy, but they fcuked it up big time - yet they walk away with fat pensions - paid for by my taxes! You couldn't make this sh1t up!

True the ones at the top deserve penury rather than our taxes being used to support them in a lfiestyle they became accustomed.

fricatus wrote: »

- I was "gambling" on being able to sell my current place and buy a bigger place:

Jesus, you'd swear I took the mortgage money and put it on the 2.45 at Kempton! :rolleyes:

You were speculating.
Nothing wrong with that if you realise that you were speculating with your home and you were buying an overpriced asset.
Speculating on something that is already overpriced is danagerous, particularly in the long run.
Fine if you plan on selling in a short time where you can make some money.

fricatus wrote: »

I presume many of your parents own or owned their own homes. They probably saved up for five years to afford a deposit, started small, furnished it bit by bit, suffered high mortgage payments every month, and then when they had reduced the mortgage enough, they sold and bought a bigger place, maybe when the family expanded.

No they weren't, because AFAIK they bought a house with a view to living in it for a good number of years.
They also spend what they could afford, not what some financial institution was firing at them.
People bought things overtime, not went out and bought everything at once, for the most part through even more credit.

A lot of the younger buyers during the bubble bought an apartment, a townhouse, a house miles from work and where they really wanted to live, a property unsuitable for growing/rearing families, just so that they got on this mythical property ladder and all with a view to flipping it for a profit in a few years down the road.
That was damm dangers gambling.

fricatus wrote: »

Were they "gamblers"? Is it not a reasonable expectation in a stable country, to buy your own home, and to be able to sell it on so as to buy a bigger place when your family expands?

Except in most cases they expected to sell it on for a profit or as much as they paid for it, even though it was obvious to anyone anyway switched on that they had paid way too much in the first place.

I do agree that rental market needs to be overhauled and that there are serious pension issues coming down the road, and they will affect not only renters but also home owners.

Ipso

djimi wrote: »

Whoever came up with the concept of a property ladder should be taken out and publically flogged. Such a fundementally stupid concept that has screwed so many people over.

For every stupid idea to take hold you need a lot of people to buy into it.

donalg1

fricatus wrote: »

I'm in negative equity, although still well able to afford the mortgage, and the way I see it is that the blame goes three ways:

- it's the government's fault for not properly regulating the housing market and allowing a consumer credit bubble. They could have imposed a maximum LTV of 85% and brought in property taxes at the stroke of a pen in 2003/2004 to cool the housing market, which was an obvious bubble to anyone whose job it is to oversee these things, like the DoF and the Central Bank.

- it's the bank's fault for lending a Joe Soap like me that amount of money for a house that was way overvalued. They could have run their business sensibly and then they wouldn't have needed to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

- it's my fault for not having a degree in economics, because let's face it, if the government say it's OK and the bank are willing to lend me the money, what reason do I have to think they're wrong?

Yet I'm supposed to pick up the tab 100%? How about the blame be shared out three ways? Say someone is €120k in negative equity. How about the government pay over €40k for their mistakes, the bank take the hit of another €40k for theirs, and the homeowner takes the hit on the remaining €40k? Remember they've already lost their deposit...

Sounds fair to me...

Seriously?

You took out the mortgage so its up to you to pay it back.

If someone in the example above is €120k in negative equity well thats their own fault for paying way over the odds for their house, so its up to them to pay it not the government and not the bank.

If you take out a mortgage you are signing an agreement to repay the amount in full plus interest, deciding after a few years that its not fair because the market value of the house has dropped doesnt change any part of the mortgage agreement.

Yes the banks should have been run better and regulated better but the borrower signed the mortgage agreement so they are liable for the debt.

Ipso

Back to the OP, the only way to get out of negative equity if for prices to go up or find domeone to over pay you for your house. I can't wait to see this scheme.