A glut of repossessions could...

Piriz

It is clear this never really went away, did it? Keep this discussion within the rules and lets see how this unfolds.

According to a recent report from the CB and analysed by DAVY (link below) suggest 23,000 houses or more could be repossessed. When is the first question and how will they be sold is the second question and ultimately what will it do to the market price?

https://www.davy.ie/research/emailHtm/emailPdf.htm?id=econ20141209_09122014.htm

see Irish Times summary here http://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/banks-push-to-confront-mortgage-holders-in-arrears-1.2031896#.VIgfrhruW24.twitter

flintash

so more people looking for rented accomodation = increased demand on rental =means higher rents= higher yeild for investors=more cash investors chasing properties.= PRICES go UP??????
i cleary cant do maths... :O

lima

Well I got my hands on a nice BTL 'voluntary' surrender there recently so finally things are happening

Slydice

Glut of repossessions?

pfft

The amount of households who haven't paid a cent in 2 years (720 days) is up to 37,484 in the latest report:
http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/mortgagearrears/Documents/2014q3_ie_mortgage_arrears_statistics.pdf

15,435 of em are buy to lets who are charging higher and higher rents recently

can't beat free money

repossessions my hole

Piriz

Slydice wrote: »

Glut of repossessions?

pfft

The amount of households who haven't paid a cent in 2 years (720 days) is up to 37,484 in the latest report:
http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/mortgagearrears/Documents/2014q3_ie_mortgage_arrears_statistics.pdf

15,435 of em are buy to lets who are charging higher and higher rents recently

can't beat free money

repossessions my hole

but it appears the CB are auditing the banks Mortgage Arrears Resolution Targets and have identified that a min of 23,000 are for repossession at this stage..the free money and non performing / kicking the can down the road could not last indefinitely...

Slydice

I dunno. It's been 7 years since the property bubble popped. They seem to be pretty good at kicking that can right on down that road. Can't imagine the government would have an appetite for it at the moment because of what is going on with Irish Water.

hfallada

23k is not a glut of repossession and it at most could very slightly reduce prices increases. If Dublin needs 10k houses per year and barely anything has been built for 7/8 years. 23k houses in the capital will have a slight impact on houses prices. Its not going to let to property crash 2.0. But 23k seems like a national amount and not just Dublin.

23k is a tiny amount. However if people think the banks are serious about repossessions. It might stop strategic defaulting.

Piriz

hfallada wrote: »

23k is not a glut of repossession and it at most could very slightly reduce prices increases. If Dublin needs 10k houses per year and barely anything has been built for 7/8 years. 23k houses in the capital will have a slight impact on houses prices. Its not going to let to property crash 2.0. But 23k seems like a national amount and not just Dublin.

23k is a tiny amount. However if people think the banks are serious about repossessions. It might stop strategic defaulting.

:eek:

The Spider

Piriz wrote: »

:eek:

It is a tiny amount there are 1,576,409 households in Ireland, 23000 is 1.4% of the total, and as has been said that 23000 isn't all in Dublin.

Villa05

Tick tock

spaceHopper

Anecdotally I've heard of one house in Inchicore Dublin, it was rented by family and the bank had repossessed the house from their LL. They got notice from the bank that they were selling the house and would have to leave. The family offered to buy the house but were told no by the bank it was being sold as part of a lot of 300 houses.

It looks like they don't want to sell them in one's that would drop the prices of all house and affect their balance sheet so are clearing repossessed houses in bulk

Sala

spaceHopper wrote: »

Anecdotally I've heard of one house in Inchicore Dublin, it was rented by family and the bank had repossessed the house from their LL. They got notice from the bank that they were selling the house and would have to leave. The family offered to buy the house but were told no by the bank it was being sold as part of a lot of 300 houses.

It looks like they don't want to sell them in one's that would drop the prices of all house and affect their balance sheet so are clearing repossessed houses in bulk

Maybe it's easier to sell as a group? I certainly would have thought they'd get more on the open market fro a house that as one of 300 where there would be expected to be a significant discount.

_Kaiser_

Sala wrote: »

Maybe it's easier to sell as a group? I certainly would have thought they'd get more on the open market fro a house that as one of 300 where there would be expected to be a significant discount.

Sounds like they're planning to sell it to one of those foreign investment groups as NAMA has done recently with a load of apartments.

Recent threads here have shown what happens next - tenants get leaflets in the mailbox telling them their rent is going up nearly €200

Great for the bank and the investors.. not so much for the tenants and potential home owners.

Thargor

How much of that 23k is ghost estates in Leitrim and all over the country though? Useless talking about them without that info.

hfallada

Thargor wrote: »

How much of that 23k is ghost estates in Leitrim and all over the country though? Useless talking about them without that info.

I imagine little or none. Ghost estates weren't often just unfinished. If the houses were never sold, there isn't a mortgage for someone to default on. Banks are going to repossess the low hanging fruit first. They aren't going to repossess some ****ty semi-d in Longford. They are going to go for houses in dublin where the mortgage is close to the value of the house. That's going to result in them clearing a chuck of their loan book

Barely Hedged

spaceHopper wrote: »

Anecdotally I've heard of one house in Inchicore Dublin, it was rented by family and the bank had repossessed the house from their LL. They got notice from the bank that they were selling the house and would have to leave. The family offered to buy the house but were told no by the bank it was being sold as part of a lot of 300 houses.

It looks like they don't want to sell them in one's that would drop the prices of all house and affect their balance sheet so are clearing repossessed houses in bulk

This is eactly whats going to happen and to think otherwise, is foolish.

Bar one or two exceptions a bank with a large portfolio of non performing assets is not going to go through the ordeal of selling them individually. Its just not possible on the scale of their business.

The result will be current prices being maintained. Also the number is a drop in the ocean of the overall households in Ireland and how many of these houses are in Dublin which is obviously the most in need of additional housing stock?

Villa05

Im aware of a sale in Co Galway that fell at deposit paid stage, because bank chose to sell house as part of a portfolio. Looks like this is the approach for the future. Those idiots we bailed out will be rubbing there hands with glee
Gombeenism on a monumental scale

Villa05

The Spider wrote: »

It is a tiny amount there are 1,576,409 households in Ireland, 23000 is 1.4% of the total, and as has been said that 23000 isn't all in Dublin.

Excluding sites there are currently 31,000 properties currently for sale on Daft

Number of households is irrelevant, its the number for sale that matters . Thats why it has been easy for the vested interests (Banks/NAMA/Government) to control price as they have almost total control over supply

The Spider

Villa05 wrote: »

Excluding sites there are currently 31,000 properties currently for sale on Daft

Number of households is irrelevant, its the number for sale that matters . Thats why it has been easy for the vested interests (Banks/NAMA/Government) to control price as they have almost total control over supply

And of that there's only 3240 in Dublin, for a population of 1.5 million, it'll take years to get that number up, and that's with sustained building

gaius c

Villa05 wrote: »

Excluding sites there are currently 31,000 properties currently for sale on Daft

Number of households is irrelevant, its the number for sale that matters . Thats why it has been easy for the vested interests (Banks/NAMA/Government) to control price as they have almost total control over supply

A normal "turnover period" for housing is approx 20-25 years, which would mean a 4-5% turnover rate. We're currently down at around 2-2.5%, which would mean that not only will folk live in a single house for their entire adult lives, they'll continue to live in it for a bit of the afterlife too.

P.S. Daft only lists currently available stock. Don't confuse it with stock over a period of time.
Extreme example but it will demonstrate this: imagine that every single property on daft sells within a week. 52 weeks in a year. Annual transactions is 1.6 million!

Michael D Not Higgins

gaius c wrote: »

A normal "turnover period" for housing is approx 20-25 years, which would mean a 4-5% turnover rate. We're currently down at around 2-2.5%, which would mean that not only will folk live in a single house for their entire adult lives, they'll continue to live in it for a bit of the afterlife too.

P.S. Daft only lists currently available stock. Don't confuse it with stock over a period of time.
Extreme example but it will demonstrate this: imagine that every single property on daft sells within a week. 52 weeks in a year. Annual transactions is 1.6 million!

This is the picture you want.

Edit: Interesting to see the slump at Christmas each year.

jmayo

hfallada wrote: »

23k is not a glut of repossession and it at most could very slightly reduce prices increases. If Dublin needs 10k houses per year and barely anything has been built for 7/8 years. 23k houses in the capital will have a slight impact on houses prices. Its not going to let to property crash 2.0. But 23k seems like a national amount and not just Dublin.

23k is a tiny amount. However if people think the banks are serious about repossessions. It might stop strategic defaulting.

The Spider wrote: »

It is a tiny amount there are 1,576,409 households in Ireland, 23000 is 1.4% of the total, and as has been said that 23000 isn't all in Dublin.

The important figure is the number of properties that are for sale and what would 23k extra would do to that.
How many properties were for sale in Ireland in 2014 ?
If you double the number of properties for sale in an area, what does that do to the market.

One of the gripes about the property market over the last few years is that it is a non functioning market in terms of numbers, but of course most just tend to focus on prices.

Thargor wrote: »

How much of that 23k is ghost estates in Leitrim and all over the country though? Useless talking about them without that info.

Why the fook does eveyone always drag out Leitrim?
I can introduce you to completely empty ghost estates and unfinished estates in Leinster in what have been termed commutter towns for Dublin i.e. towns on rail and motorway links.

As others have said the banks are hoping to flog off these properties en masse to bi players, all the better if they are foreign players, with oodles of cash.
And the upshot is going to be, as we have already had threads on here, a big increase in rents for sitting or new tenants.

The next big thing for some savvy politicans is going to be fighting for rent controls.
Sadly this mantel will probably be taken up by the looney left and believers in magic money trees.

And if you look at it dispassionately, it is a right royal kick in the nuts to be a taxpayer who has suffered over the last number of years to help bailout inept greedy (often fraudently run) banks and developers, only now to end up being screwed with high rents by a new tranch of landlords who have ended up with cheap property courtesy of the taxpayers.

handlemaster

The banks that are repossessing most are foreign banks no longer in business so we didnt bail them out. Saying banks shouldnt do this or that is pointless.

Field east

Everybody has an agenda- from board posters , journalists , television presenters/ personalities, etc, etc, etc. These agendas are frequently hidden. A generic example would be not telling the full story ,not giving objective context, etc. the repossession issue is no exception. So, would someone provide clarity/ confirm the following :-

(1) how many of the repossessions end up with the owner actually been put out on the street/road? Is there some truth that we 'all went mad' and bought a second and maybe third house and being new to the renting game and managing the financials of same things fell apart with the downturn? So might have to give up the purchased houses but not the home place. Ŵ If this is the case in some cases , then it would be very disingenuous for anyone to use the total repossession fig as they all becoming homeless.
(2) the repossessed house occupants , where rented, are back on the accomodation renting market . They eventually get themselves fixed up- but maybe not in their ideal type accomodation/location. I have experience of individuals being 'put up' by friends/ relatives /family until they get something. So is it right again to include these in this overall repossession figure -leading to homelessness- when they eventually find someplace else to rent.
Most of us ,at some stage in our lives, have had to double up with friends or whatever and pay for accomodation which we could only afford and work away until we could afford something more convenient and better.
(3) it is not explained what happens to the repossessed properties. Would it not be the case - in a given time frame - that they feed back in to the housing stock which are purchased to provide homes . So as one individual / group moves out another individual moves in- having allowed for a time lag. So, homelessness ='homed'
(4) In general, individuals using the media to make their case -be it housing, unsustainable income, etc- are never asked about their total income from all sources, property owned/willed to them, etc. Never asked also about the broad family situation. Never asked what the money was/is being spent on - most exp goes on food, but what type of foods ?.Single mothers are never asked about where the father is, what he is contributing , etc. The typical individual seems to be trying to manage all by themselves with no friends/relations/family members and not a red cent left at the end of the week. And we are supposed to be the best nation when it comes to helping our neighbour, community spirit, volunteering , etc.
In summary, I acknowledge that's here are some very genuine cases out there with real income /accomodation problems , but these cases are being lumped in with all the other cases that are not really hardship cases -some even being of a very fraudulent nature. One only need to look at all the fraudulent cases of drawing social welfare. There are probably more cases out there that the Dept has yet to identify. Consider the Depts time spent - and cost of same -in these investigations and follow up and that this time and money could be made available to genuine cases. Then you have the 'can pay but will not pay' sector that again is impacting on genuine cases.
So , if Mary/joe .citizen were confident that the story they are hearing is a genuine and the full story we all ,including government, could respond more accurately , more fully and more immediately. Look at all the agencies that are involved in looking after the homeless in Dublin. Maybe all doing excellent work but is there room for reviewing the overall picture re amalgamation, sharing skills resources, knowledge, formal networking ,etc. would they agree , for example , to publish the bed uptake in their overnight provision- like the hospitals do re patients on trolleys. Because if the uptake is , say, 80% then there is a real problem someplace if 175 + are sleeping rough

gaius c

Good post Field east and the simple answer is that we don't know for sure why the media seem to be really slow to do some investigation into what the likely impact of repossessions would be.

What we do know is:
-newspapers were/are heavily dependent on advertising income from property and the Irish times owns myhome. The Journal is owned by the parent company of daft.ie
-in the hysteria of the bubble, a lot of people got sucked in and made some very silly investments in property. We know about the likes of Gay Byrne being in NAMA and Pat Kenny blowing a load on penthouse apartments at the Four Seasons and the dark hints re Gerry Ryan's property related debts. Even people lower down the food chain in the media got drawn in to the pool way beyond their ability to swim. Alison O'Riordan is somewhat unfairly a figure of fun over on the property pin but she's lumped with an enormous debt on a docklands shoebox. These people are agenda setters and it's noticeable with Pat Kenny in particular just how much emphasis he places on "debt writedown" whenever the subject comes up on his show.

That's the media but there have been some anecdotal and worrying stories about the extent to which the "professions" are in trouble. Solicitors, doctors & judges... The last of those is one that should raise particular concern because they are the guys & gals presiding over repo court hearings.

Our political leaders love their property as well. Not everybody is up there with Frank "40 gaffs" Fahey but there's a significant bias towards property owners throughout the dail.

mfergus

hfallada wrote: »

Banks are going to repossess the low hanging fruit first. They aren't going to repossess some ****ty semi-d in Longford. T

The awkward moment where you own a semi d in Longford

jmayo

handlemaster wrote: »

The banks that are repossessing most are foreign banks no longer in business so we didnt bail them out. Saying banks shouldnt do this or that is pointless.

Yep foreign owned subsidary banks weren't bailed out by us.
Although their parents were for the most part bailed out by taxpayers in the parents's home country.

For instance Danske, owner of NIB, was bailed out by Danish government.
Ulster, granted they are still here, had it's parent RBS begging off the British government.
Remember Halifax/Bank fo Scotland Ireland, well HBOS cost the British taxpayer billions.

AFAIK Rabobank lost nearly a billion in ACC, but they were one of the few that didn't need a bailout.
The funny thing is it's chairman in 2008 spoke out about the big bailouts, particularly those wth subprimr crud in the US.
Then again he originally studied theology so maybe his morals shone through even after 40 odd years of banking. :rolleyes:

One of the posters above mentioned pat kenny and proeprty related debts.
Could anyone also explain why he was so fond of having a certain financial advisor/web site owner/moderator, who once recommended people fill their boots with Irish bank shares, on his show ?

gaius c

Brendan Burgess is firmly against defaulters getting easy no-questions-asked writedowns on their debt btw.