Condescending attitudes towards people who bought houses during the boom

Paramite Pie

Joe Hart wrote: »

You took a huge risk and you still pissed away 200K that you didn't need to.

The difference in someone buying in 2006 for 400K and in 2012 for 200K is about 400K in mortgage repayments. Rental payments for those 6 years might amount to 80K. A person renting is far better placed to take job opportunties in Ireland and abroad.

That was the price of the house. How did he not need to pay all that money?

When you buy a car, it devalues. It doesn't stop people buying cars. A house lasts much longer. Some people just failed (and still fail) to comprehend that their house wasn't safe money, there's no such thing.:rolleyes:

If he has no plans to sell and has a steady job then I think he's okay.:)

shruikan2553

Chop Chop wrote: »

And fair play, it makes no sense to fùck a family on the street and then ask them to pay for the home they were fúcked out of.

But they aren't paying for the home, they are repaying the money that they borrowed and agreed to pay back plus interest

JRant

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Very true. Have a look at japans property price movements. We're facing the same. I buy to let, on a fixed ratio of price/income. Havn't seen anything for sale to meet the equation for a long time, neither during the boom or now. Reality is a good bit lower than prices are at the moment even. There's further drops to come. Followed by a long flat period and then slow, slow growth. By long, I'd guess a decade or more. 10x annual rent or gtfo. So av €650*12*10=€78K. That's for a 3 bed average house in an estate outside Dublin. For Dublin, €850*12*10=€95kish or €1000*12*10=€120k as an average for a 3 / 4 bed. Unrealistic? Wanna bet? Anything else is la-la land as an investment as is being proven by the current travails.

+1
Very sensible approach I must say. Also when you factor in the amounts that people looking for mortgage approval are now being offered by lenders compared to house prices there is still some way to go before we see a healthy housing market again.

Chop Chop

shruikan2553 wrote: »

But they aren't paying for the home, they are repaying the money that they borrowed and agreed to pay back plus interest

Of course, so where do you think they are going to get the money to rent as well as paying off a house they were fúcked out of?

Does not compute.

JRant

Chop Chop wrote: »

Of course, so where do you think they are going to get the money to rent as well as paying off a house they were fúcked out of?

Does not compute.

Genuine question, what would you do about those who can't pay their mortgage?

Chop Chop

JRant wrote: »

Genuine question, what would you do about those who can't pay their mortgage?

If people are paying nothing, well then that's fair game for the banks, but if people are paying 80% of their mortgage, I do believe that they should be able to avail of the split mortgage solution. At the end of the day, they will ultimately pay all of what they borrowed. It's just parked for a period, they don't get any slash and burn.

This seems to be the preferred method of late, which has my full backing. It's mainly the " begrudgers renters association" that have a problem with this.

MMAGirl

i see this thread is gone to the usual place when buying houses is mentioned.
is there a swarm hovering that descends on the mention of home ownership. sort of like an irish godwin task force that comes in to ruin a thread.
there is a public sector one too.

Grayson

MadsL wrote: »

I warned at least 3 collegues not to buy, I was roundly laughed at for what I was paying in rent. I figure I avoided at least a net €100-150k loss by renting.

Up until about 4-5 years before the boom ended i had a lot of reletives who were telling me i should buy. A lot of friends who did buy were at it too. This petered off during the last couple years of the boom. At that point they all assumed i was just was never going to buy. Prices were just too high for most single people to buy a house.

The main reason i never bought was because i didn't need to or want to. I'll admit, after the first 5 years, i knew there was a bubble, but i didn't believe it would drop too much when it burst. And I thought that it would rebalance after about 10-15 years. That looks like an overly optimistic estimate at this stage. Nearer the end, it got more obvious that the drop could be really nasty but in 2004, it didn't look that bad. I think it was when i heard that 60% of the governments revenue came from housing I realised how bad it was going to get if house sales stopped.

But, had I a family I might have considered buying. The main reason is because you just don't get great security on renting. I've lived in a few places where I've been kicked out because the landlord wanted to sell (especially in the boom). If you plan on living somewhere for the next 30 years, it doesn't matter how much the house cost so long as it's affordable. It could get more expensive or cheaper and it's all good, because you're paying a mortgage on a home, not on an investment. It's a pity longer fixed leases aren't available in this country.

I do think I look down a bit on the people who bought as investments or to get on the ladder. There wasn't a need to own the house. They just wanted to own one. Alison O'Riordan was a (sub)prime example.

theUbiq

Condescending attitudes towards greedy, stupid, gullible people who bought overpriced houses during the boom works better don't you think OP?

holystungun9

Esoteric_ wrote: »

Op, I presume you also bought during the boom?

Sure he would've been mad not ta!

No, tbh many people got swept up in the madness. If I was in a different position at the time I couldn't swear that I wouldn't have jumped in on the action too. For some people it worked out fine, for others, they are in a terrible position. At this stage, scoffing at someone's misjudgment, error or short sightedness isn't the thing to do either way.

stoneill

There was a boom? I must have missed that.

Daffodil.d

People bought expensive houses and that's fine because you might always be taking a riskand it's hard to know when to make the move. Jobs were well paid and they could afford at the time to pay their mortgages but what a lot of people did then was get large loans or a little extra on the mortgages to decorate the houses. I know someone who is on their 5 suite of living room furniture tryin to keep up with the Jones. Large tvs, American style fridges, marble or porcelain tiling, 2 foreign holidays a year, and 2 mpv.s in the drive,All paid for with borrowed money. My friends laughed at me during that time because I saved for everything. I am not giving myself a pat on the back. I was a scaredicat and wouldn't take risks. I forfeited things I did want like the good tiles and the solid wood kitchen counter getting the cheaper option of Formica instead. We borrowed a couch when we moved in to our house and waited til we saved the money. So when someone is having trouble paying their mortgage it isn't always just the house their saying for it is the extras they chose to have on top of it. I feel really bad for anyone who lost their job and are struggling now but it's like any gambling situation. If I go in and put a large amount of money on a horse and he doesn't win would you feel sorry for me especially if you had only put on a tenner. No you wouldn't. Would you think to yourself that was a foolishly large gamble and judge me. Yes you would because it's human nature.

Chop Chop

Daffodil.d wrote: »

People bought expensive houses and that's fine because you might always be taking a riskand it's hard to know when to make the move. Jobs were well paid and they could afford at the time to pay their mortgages but what a lot of people did then was get large loans or a little extra on the mortgages to decorate the houses. I know someone who is on their 5 suite of living room furniture tryin to keep up with the Jones. Large tvs, American style fridges, marble or porcelain tiling, 2 foreign holidays a year, and 2 mpv.s in the drive,All paid for with borrowed money. My friends laughed at me during that time because I saved for everything. I am not giving myself a pat on the back. I was a scaredicat and wouldn't take risks. I forfeited things I did want like the good tiles and the solid wood kitchen counter getting the cheaper option of Formica instead. We borrowed a couch when we moved in to our house and waited til we saved the money. So when someone is having trouble paying their mortgage it isn't always just the house their saying for it is the extras they chose to have on top of it. I feel really bad for anyone who lost their job and are struggling now but it's like any gambling situation. If I go in and put a large amount of money on a horse and he doesn't win would you feel sorry for me especially if you had only put on a tenner. No you wouldn't. Would you think to yourself that was a foolishly large gamble and judge me. Yes you would because it's human nature.

I have all this, but it's all paid for. But like others I still get stereotyped as one of these Celtic tiger loonies, I never borrowed heavily during the boom and I own my house and cars.

Funny enough, remember when credit card companies were throwing credit cards at people?

I signed up for a credit card two weeks ago and guess what was on the form?

I had to sign a section that states that the bank didn't force this credit card on me. Mad stuff altogether.

Daffodil.d

Chop Chop wrote: »

I have all this, but it's all paid for. But like others I still get stereotyped as one of these Celtic tiger loonies, I never borrowed heavily during the boom and I own my house and cars.

Funny enough, remember when credit card companies were throwing
I signed up for a credit card two weeks ago and guess what was on the form?

I had to sign a section that states that the bank didn't force this credit card on me. Mad stuff altogether.

My job at the time was reasonably well paid I must have gotten a couple of hundred letters from credit card companies offering me credit. I dont know where they got my address. But I never took them up on their offersI am unemployed now and the letterbox only has utility bills. But as you said I did get some expensive stuff but held back on getting them All. That's the difference. We all wanted nice things. We all just didn't buy them ALL.

true

Chop Chop wrote: »

I signed up for a credit card two weeks ago and guess what was on the form?

I had to sign a section that states that the bank didn't force this credit card on me. Mad stuff altogether.

The banks know full well they did mis-sell during the boom ....they did not lend prudently. They sometimes lent much more than they should have to people who never had a chance of paying it back, so some banker could get his bonus. They are being more careful now.

JRant

Chop Chop wrote: »

If people are paying nothing, well then that's fair game for the banks, but if people are paying 80% of their mortgage, I do believe that they should be able to avail of the split mortgage solution. At the end of the day, they will ultimately pay all of what they borrowed. It's just parked for a period, they don't get any slash and burn.

This seems to be the preferred method of late, which has my full backing. It's mainly the " begrudgers renters association" that have a problem with this.

I'd say the banks would be more than willing to accept around 80% of a mortgage payment but only for a very limited time, 12 to 24 months max. The term of the mortgage in question also has a large bearing as a 35 year mortgage leaves very little room for manouver.

I'm a renter myself and can say i have no desire to see anybody lose their home. What I can't agree with is the 24,000 mortgage holders in arrears of 2 years or more living in a house for free while the rest of us are paying rent or a mortgage.

Grayson

holystungun9 wrote: »

Sure he would've been mad not ta!

No, tbh many people got swept up in the madness. If I was in a different position at the time I couldn't swear that I wouldn't have jumped in on the action too. For some people it worked out fine, for others, they are in a terrible position. At this stage, scoffing at someone's misjudgment, error or short sightedness isn't the thing to do either way.

Depends on the person you're scoffing at. there were some who made educated, informed yet bad choices. there were some who were just idiots, thought they were brillant and made sure everyone knew they were. People in the second group are fair game.

Chop Chop

JRant wrote: »

I'd say the banks would be more than willing to accept around 80% of a mortgage payment but only for a very limited time, 12 to 24 months max. The term of the mortgage in question also has a large bearing as a 35 year mortgage leaves very little room for manouver.

I'm a renter myself and can say i have no desire to see anybody lose their home. What I can't agree with is the 24,000 mortgage holders in arrears of 2 years or more living in a house for free while the rest of us are paying rent or a mortgage.

It's about 100,000 and being in arrears doesn't mean paying nothing, you could be in arrears for the last 5 years for paying 95% of the mortgage.

People that can't pay and haven't, well that's different.

Odats

Chop Chop wrote: »

It's about 100,000 and being in arrears doesn't mean paying nothing, you could be in arrears for the last 5 years for paying 95% of the mortgage.

People that can't pay and haven't, well that's different.

Arrears AFAIK technically is 3 consecutive missed months mortgage repayments from a statistics perspective. If you are paying 95% of your mortgage I couldn't see the bank refusing it.

I have no sympathy for anyone who is tactically defaulting in the hope of some mortgage debt forgiveness. I have sympathy for those who borrowed within their means but have fallen on hard times due to job loss etc.

Chop Chop

Odats wrote: »

Arrears AFAIK technically is 3 consecutive missed months mortgage repayments from a statistics perspective. If you are paying 95% of your mortgage I couldn't see the bank refusing it.

I have no sympathy for anyone who is tactically defaulting in the hope of some mortgage debt forgiveness. I have sympathy for those who borrowed within their means but have fallen on hard times due to job loss etc.

Interest only, will put you into arrears, it's still classed as a missed payment and the capital accrues over time. That is then calculated into months.

JRant

Chop Chop wrote: »

It's about 100,000 and being in arrears doesn't mean paying nothing, you could be in arrears for the last 5 years for paying 95% of the mortgage.

People that can't pay and haven't, well that's different.

The 100,000 figure is 3 months or more. Of that 100,000 there are 24,000 mortgages in arrears of 2 years or more. Figures are easily available from the CSO website.

You'd only be in arrears if there was no restructuring of the mortgage. If both parties agree to a restructure then this will be borne out in the repayment plan, less in payments v increase in term lenght.

Fr_Fitzexactly

Rezident wrote: »

But for many people getting into debt for half a million quid for a small house that may be worth less than half that in a few years time is idiotic. Just because lots of people were doing it does not make it ok. Plus it ruins the property market for the rest of us who want to buy a house once market prices are in line with intrinsic values. You can blame the government and the banks and the regulators and everyone else all you want, but who bought the houses at the idiotic prices? At the end of the day, it was their fault.

They took a gamble and lost, kind of like the banks but they don't really lose as such as we're now being made pay to keep them in business. I have my doubts about how many people really saw the crash coming as soon and as severe as it did.

Maybe things would be better if property could only be given away or passed along as inheritance (kind of like Ivory) with a strict 1 house per person limit and an upper limit set for how much someone can charge to rent out a house. Apartments could be built near industrial areas - as in only in Dublin by the government as a public service.

Rabidlamb

Yes I bought my house in 2005 & overpaid for it but there's a few thing being overlooked here.

During the lifetime of my loan I've only briefly paid above 2% in interest due to my Tracker, our new neighbours who paid half the price for the same home are at the mercy of the Variable.
I can avail of TRS up to 30% of the interest, they don't have this facility.
I started my mortgage 8 years ago so the capital portion has started to come down, NE for me should only last for another year or 2.
I've 17 years left he has 25, I might be paying more per month but I should be in a position to pay it off sooner.

Duggys Housemate

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Yes I bought my house in 2005 & overpaid for it but there's a few thing being overlooked here.

During the lifetime of my loan I've only briefly paid above 2% in interest due to my Tracker, our new neighbours who paid half the price for the same home are at the mercy of the Variable.
I can avail of TRS up to 30% of the interest, they don't have this facility.
I started my mortgage 8 years ago so the capital portion has started to come down, NE for me should only last for another year or 2.
I've 17 years left he has 25, I might be paying more per month but I should be in a position to pay it off sooner.

This is completely true ( saying as someone who waited). People on trackers are not really in a bad position.

smash

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

This is completely true ( saying as someone who waited). People on trackers are not really in a bad position.

I know people with houses the same as mine paying less than half of what I pay a month on my mortgage and I'm on a tracker. I personally think I'm in a worse position.

previous user

bluewolf wrote: »

Fair few people might see it as turnabout for getting condescending attitudes from them during the boom for not buying

Yep, remember this - "Oh, you're renting, oh..."

Boombastic

We are expected to listen to financial advice from these idiots who queued up overnight to buy overpriced properties, using their parents house as collateral, as if they are some sort of geniuses on how to fix the economy when they couldn't even figure out at the time that Cavan is further than 30 mins from Dublin :rolleyes:

Ghost Buster

padd b1975 wrote: »

I bought during the boom.

I am very happy where I live and have no plans to move.

My monthly repayments are much lower than what it would cost me to rent a similar property.

Me to. But only because I turned down offers/pressure from the bank to take out money to furnish the house, decorate it, landscape the gardens, add an en-suite (we have but one bog!) etc etc. We took out enough to get the structure good enough to move in to. We did the rest ourselves and are (nearly) finished 12 years later!:cool:

smash

Boombastic wrote: »

We are expected to listen to financial advice from these idiots who queued up overnight to buy overpriced properties, using their parents house as collateral, as if they are some sort of geniuses on how to fix the economy when they couldn't even figure out at the time that Cavan is further than 30 mins from Dublin :rolleyes:

The people you're targeting would be a very very small minority of people who purchased during the boom.

Grumpypants

The thing is lots of those people claiming they had great foresight into the property crash and that they refused to buy a overpriced house because they knew something others didn't were 17 ten years ago and just had no means of getting a loan even if they wanted one.

I always laugh when I see some 25 year old mouthing of about how he didn't get caught up in the madness. Of course you didn't you were living in your moms house !