2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

PropQueries

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Piece on IRES in today's IT - cough cough trickling supply...

State’s biggest landlord increased revenue by 20% last year










https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/state-s-biggest-landlord-increased-revenue-by-20-last-year-1.4489413?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fcommercial-property%2Fstate-s-biggest-landlord-increased-revenue-by-20-last-year-1.4489413

I think the opposition should try get details on how many units in the build-to-rent sector are partially or fully funded through HAP or long-term lease agreements.

They could just ask the department to give the percentage without breaking down which BTR crowd benefits from this state largesse without divulging "secret" or "commercially" sensitive information.

Back in 2018: "11% of I-RES's total portfolio of rental properties of 2,678" were HAP recipients according to RTE. That figure probably excludes other supports e.g. long-term lease agreements or whatever thing existed back then etc.

Updated figures would be very interesting and would most likely show how much these reits etc. rely on the state's privatised social housing model for the majority of their profits IMO

Link to 2018 RTE article here: https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0809/983942-housing-social-tenancies/

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

Wasn't a widescale problem pre 2008 as most people paid their mortgages, and those who were unable to did not think it unreasonable that they might have to give up the house.

That's been turned upside down since 2008.

But isn't that more due to because they thought the downturn would be a year or two max and then they could get back on their feet?

Once the downturn got into year 3, 4, 5 etc. and the private sector worker began to realise that the bankers, the civil servants and the public sector workers had all been bailed out and that he's been left holding the can, I wouldn't blame him for shutting off his payments to the banks etc. IMO

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

But isn't that more due to because they thought the downturn would be a year or two max and then they could get back on their feet?

Once the downturn got into year 3, 4, 5 etc. and the private sector worker began to realise that the bankers, the civil servants and the public sector workers had all been bailed out and that he's been left holding the can, I wouldn't blame him for shutting off his payments to the banks etc. IMO

The more it became clear that public opinion and thus govt policy was that it was the banks' fault that people were in mortgage arrears, the more it became clear that there was little prospect of losing your PPR in a hurry if you were in arrears.

As this went on, for many who were deep in negative equity, and at the time believed there was no prospect of ever getting into positive equity, the rational decision was to stop paying your mortgage, irrespective of whether they could afford it or not.

tigger123

PropQueries wrote: »

But isn't that more due to because they thought the downturn would be a year or two max and then they could get back on their feet?

Once the downturn got into year 3, 4, 5 etc. and the private sector worker began to realise that the bankers, the civil servants and the public sector workers had all been bailed out and that he's been left holding the can, I wouldn't blame him for shutting off his payments to the banks etc. IMO

How were the public and civil service bailed out? Was it through those civil and public service pay cuts?

cnocbui

tigger123 wrote: »

How were the public and civil service bailed out? Was it through those civil and public service pay cuts?

They were bailed out by not being let go - insulated from unemployment such as befell many in the private sector.

PropQueries

tigger123 wrote: »

How were the public and civil service bailed out? Was it through those civil and public service pay cuts?

The vast majority of our current debt is due to keeping civil servant and public sector salaries and pensions at near enough boom time levels.

The state has already got back a significant portion of the money used to bail out the banks. The PRSI fund was in the black through most (maybe all?) of the downturn so the social welfare payments weren't the cause of our current debt problem either.

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

The more it became clear that public opinion and thus govt policy was that it was the banks' fault that people were in mortgage arrears, the more it became clear that there was little prospect of losing your PPR in a hurry if you were in arrears.

As this went on, for many who were deep in negative equity, and at the time believed there was no prospect of ever getting into positive equity, the rational decision was to stop paying your mortgage, irrespective of whether they could afford it or not.

I don't think many people who could afford to pay their mortgage on their home refused to pay if they could afford it.

Receiving letters and calls every second week would drive any person crazy and the end game is that you're more than likely to lose your house anyway.

So, I don't think the percentage of these "strategic defaulters" is as large as some make out.

I think it's just a way for the funds to get the public onside regarding repossessions and extract the maximum value from the mortgages they bought for a pittance over the past several years.

cnocbui

I wonder if thes funds have a 'cunning plan' to take the Irish government to court in the US and get a judgement forcing them to change the laws to allow reposessions?

I'm thinking of that lovely guy, Singer, who bought up Argentina's defaulted soverign debt for cents in the dollar and then took the Argentinian government to court in the US and got a judgement against a formerly sovereign country.

Gradius

Banks are in trouble because massive loans were given out on massive mortgages on massively overpriced housing encouraged massively by governments and banks. And that means this entire country is in trouble.

Nothing has been done to rectify it since the recession even though many called out the fact that the "recovery" was anything but an actual recovery. The can has been kicked down the road and now the end of that road is rapidly approaching.

Forgetting complexity, a simple thrust of "calling it quits, starting over" should certainly be considered.

It's better to start from bottom and have an upward trajectory rather than this quagmire of perpetual descent.

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

I don't think many people who could afford to pay their mortgage on their home refused to pay if they could afford it.

Receiving letters and calls every second week would drive any person crazy and the end game is that you're more than likely to lose your house anyway.

So, I don't think the percentage of these "strategic defaulters" is as large as some make out.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. You only have to read some of the posts on this thread to see how we have normalised the idea that "Your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments" is an empty threat.

Like so many things about our housing market we are an outlier in this area, and people are unable to accept the obvious answer:



Welcome to Ireland, Where Mortgage Payments Are Optional

PropQueries wrote: »

I think it's just a way for the funds to get the public onside regarding repossessions and extract the maximum value from the mortgages they bought for a pittance over the past several years.

I think you've got that back to front. The funds were the solution to the public and political opposition to repossession not the cause.

The funds have the advantage over the banks, that they can play the long game.

They're buying problem loans at a huge discount precisely because enforcement is difficult. If the wind changes any successful repossessions or repayments are simply a bonus.

Longer term, ultimately they will get possession, people have to sell and move out at some stage due to their own circumstances - death, divorce etc. The capital appreciation in the meantime is vast.

decreds

schmittel wrote: »

This right here is everything that is f*cked up about our property market.

4,000 loans with an average balance of 300,000 means total loan book is valued at 1.2bn outstanding.

Mars Capital have bought this for a third of its value, meaning AIB and the taxpayer have booked a 66% or 800m loss and Mars will make a fortune.

There is nowhere in the country that a 300k property bought even at the height of the boom is worth only 100k. So even if every single mortgage was a 100% bought at top of market, AIB and the taxpayer would have got a better deal by repoing and selling the asset.

To add insult to injury they feel the need to bury the bad news not because they're making a poor decision, but because they're worried about vulture fund criticism.

The average time of default is 10 years. 90% of the portfolio entered default over 7 years ago.

The raft of unintended consequences as a result of our naive no repossessions policy is the single biggest factor causing the current housing problems.

This would not happen in any other country, whereas we happily support it. It is mind blowing.

No wonder the vulture funds think we're the gift that keeps on giving.

It's sheer lunacy why there hasn't been people in the streets over VFs.


I honestly don't know how the term "Fighting Irish " was coined as we are perhaps one of the most spineless nations in the world.



While some generations no doubt had more luck than others when it comes to the property game, there should be no divide and easy scapegoats made i.e targeting the small time landlords etc. Make no mistake our country has and is actively being sold to VCs.


It's my kids generation i fear for most, due to the fact that they are the most docile and will bend over and take this with lube and that home ownership by Irish people will be a minority by then, most likely.

decreds

cnocbui wrote: »

I just want to get on a plane and get a long way away from this madhouse - permanently.

Plenty of high value people will leave this country in droves once the lockdown ends and SF come to power.


Huge brain drain on the way.

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. You only have to read some of the posts on this thread to see how we have normalised the idea that "Your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments" is an empty threat.

Like so many things about our housing market we are an outlier in this area, and people are unable to accept the obvious answer:



Welcome to Ireland, Where Mortgage Payments Are Optional



I think you've got that back to front. The funds were the solution to the public and political opposition to repossession not the cause.

The funds have the advantage over the banks, that they can play the long game.

They're buying problem loans at a huge discount precisely because enforcement is difficult. If the wind changes any successful repossessions or repayments are simply a bonus.

Longer term, ultimately they will get possession, people have to sell and move out at some stage due to their own circumstances - death, divorce etc. The capital appreciation in the meantime is vast.

Don't get me wrong. I think repossessions are a good thing for a properly functioning housing market. And if both the lender and the borrower understand at the outset the implications of default I think many people would agree.

But given that all the groups involved in forcing those mortgage holders into unsustainable mortgage debt in the first place have got bailed out i.e. bankers, civil servants and public sector employees, there would be a very real possibility of very real civil unrest if the repossession rules were changed at this time IMO

I still don't believe many of these strategic defaulters really exist though. It's a propaganda piece thrown out for whatever reason by whatever group IMO

If you work in a multinational or are a civil servant and your pay hasn't been really impacted over the past ten years, what would be the point in strategically defaulting on your home loan? Absolutely none IMO

However, at this stage, over 10 years later, I think the only real beneficiaries will be the funds as the banks have offloaded much of their problem loans to them at this stage.

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

Don't get me wrong. I think repossessions are a good thing for a properly functioning housing market. And if both the lender and the borrower understand at the outset the implications of default I think many people would agree.

But given that all the groups involved in forcing those mortgage holders into unsustainable mortgage debt in the first place have got bailed out i.e. bankers, civil servants and public sector employees, there would be a very real possibility of very real civil unrest if the repossession rules were changed at this time IMO

I still don't believe many of these strategic defaulters really exist though. It's a propaganda piece thrown out for whatever reason by whatever group IMO

If you work in a multinational or are a civil servant and your pay hasn't been really impacted over the past ten years, what would be the point in strategically defaulting on your home loan? Absolutely none IMO

However, at this stage, over 10 years later, I think the only real beneficiaries will be the funds as the banks have offloaded much of their problem loans to them at this stage.

The idea that the banks got bailed out is another populist myth that doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.

Yes, billions were pumped into them to keep them afloat because the public need banks, but not before the owners of the banks - the shareholders - lost everything.

So those who you would expect to pay for the poor commercial decisions taken by the banks did so.

And it’s easy to think so what, the shareholders were mostly faceless institutional investors. But those investors held the shares for people’s pensions. Bank shares were seen as conservative investments for widows and orphans, and they lost the lot.

Re strategic defaulters, impossible to say how many but the sheer weight of numbers confirms some of them are. Ireland’s stats are a textbook case of strategic default. In 2013 nearly 70% of mortgage holders in arrears had not lost their job, and had lower mortgage payments because of falling interest rates.

Have a read of this: Can’t pay, won’t pay: where does the truth lie in the mortgage arrears crisis crisis?

Villa05

PropQueries wrote:

If/when they decide to leave, they purchased them so cheaply that they can most likely sell many of the underlying assets at c. 25% of today's prices and still walk away with double their initial investment IMO

Villa05 wrote:

We have essentially sold them a goldmine with the state doing the mining for them and the profits can leave without paying any tax

Serious question
Why would they want to leave? Are they going to find anywhere in the world more corrupt/gullible with taxpayers money?

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

The idea that the banks got bailed out is another populist myth that doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.

Yes, billions were pumped into them to keep them afloat because the public need banks, but not before the owners of the banks - the shareholders - lost everything.

So those who you would expect to pay for the poor commercial decisions taken by the banks did so.

And it’s easy to think so what, the shareholders were mostly faceless institutional investors. But those investors held the shares for people’s pensions. Bank shares were seen as conservative investments for widows and orphans, and they lost the lot.

Re strategic defaulters, impossible to say how many but the sheer weight of numbers confirms some of them are. Ireland’s stats are a textbook case of strategic default. In 2013 nearly 70% of mortgage holders in arrears had not lost their job, and had lower mortgage payments because of falling interest rates.

Have a read of this: Can’t pay, won’t pay: where does the truth lie in the mortgage arrears crisis crisis?

The bankers did get bailed out. They kept their pay and more importantly their pensions in most cases. Companies don't make decisions, employees do (the CEO is an employee in my eyes). So, the employees should have suffered before the shareholders IMO (Not a popular opinion I know )

I still don't buy the number of strategic defaulters on home loans if they didn't suffer a big income drop though. Despite the lax repossession rules, the end game is still you could lose your home and you can't get another mortgage. Where's the strategic benefit if you can afford to meet repayments?

A strategic default on a BTL makes perfect sense (that's an investment and if the bank takes that you're not homeless), but not on a persons home loan if they can afford it.

Just from a purely selfish point of view, it makes absolutely no sense. Where's the strategy in "strategic default" in that case. At the end you have a strong possibility of losing your home and not being able to get another mortgage to buy a new one. That's not a strategy, that's some other word I don't know of IMO

PropQueries

Villa05 wrote: »

Serious question
Why would they want to leave? Are they going to find anywhere in the world more corrupt/gullible with taxpayers money?

The funds take in money from investors and their investors are going to want it back some day. They can now leave and book their ridiculously large profit.

Why would they take the risk in staying another 5 years and the economy potentially collapses completely or another party comes to power and does something that impacts their ability to sell or make their current return?

They should now take their profits and run IMO

Yurt2

decreds wrote: »

Plenty of high value people will leave this country in droves once the lockdown ends and SF come to power.


Huge brain drain on the way.

Ireland has been in a permanent state of brain drain since the foundation of the country. Some of the best and most capable Irish I've met are abroad hustling, doing very well and would laugh at the prospect of returning to Ireland.

Please don't try to scare us with the prospect of rentiers and property sector spivs upping sticks and leaving Ireland. A lot of people would throw a party

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

The bankers did get bailed out. They kept their pay and more importantly their pensions in most cases. Companies don't make decisions, employees do. So, the employees should have suffered before the shareholders IMO (Not a popular opinion I know )

I still don't buy the number of strategic defaulters on home loans if they didn't suffer a big income drop though. Despite the lax repossession rules, the end game is still you could lose your home and you can't get another mortgage. Where's the strategic benefit if you can afford to meet repayments?

A strategic default on a BTL makes perfect sense (that's an investment and if the bank takes that you're not homeless), but not on a persons home loan if they can afford it.

Just from a purely selfish point of view, it makes absolutely no sense. Where's the strategy in "strategic default" in that case. At the end you have a strong possibility of losing your home and not being able to get another mortgage to buy a new one. That's not a strategy, that's some other word I don't know of IMO

There was talk of banks dong deals, write offs, wide scale debt forgiveness etc. the strategy was to reduce your cost of housing.

I know a person who did it on a huge 100% mortgage, and he was quite candid about it. He explained that the first payment he skipped was the hardest. After that, with every letter he ignored, the next letter became easier to ignore.

He’s had a few battles with the bank in the last 10 years but they’ve all been about his investment properties, and he’s still lording it up in his PPR apparently carefree.

He lives in one of the nicest houses in the country and has done so at zero cost, for 10 years. He’s actually being paid to live there as he rents out an adjoining lodge house.

His strategy has unquestionably paid off so far. Presumably they’ll haul him out eventually but that might not be for another 5 years, by which stage all his kids will be grown up and he’d probably be ready to downsize anyway.

No idea what his plan is then, but if he’d been putting even half his mortgage payment into stock market every month since 2010 he’ll have no trouble buying a house outright.

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

There was talk of banks dong deals, write offs, wide scale debt forgiveness etc. the strategy was to reduce your cost of housing.

I know a person who did it on a huge 100% mortgage, and he was quite candid about it. He explained that the first payment he skipped was the hardest. After that, with every letter he ignored, the next letter became easier to ignore.

He’s had a few battles with the bank in the last 10 years but they’ve all been about his investment properties, and he’s still lording it up in his PPR apparently carefree.

He lives in one of the nicest houses in the country and has done so at zero cost, for 10 years. He’s actually being paid to live there as he rents out an adjoining lodge house.

His strategy has unquestionably paid off so far. Presumably they’ll haul him out eventually but that might not be for another 5 years, by which stage all his kids will be grown up and he’d probably be ready to downsize anyway.

No idea what his plan is then, but if he’d been putting even half his mortgage payment into stock market every month since 2010 he’ll have no trouble buying a house outright.

His case as a strategic defaulter makes perfect sense. His home is probably cross secured against his investment properties so he's right to strategically default until the end. Once he caves in, there's a good chance he loses his home even if he keeps up the home loan repayments but can't keep up the investment property loan repayments.

But a worker who didn't lose his job or didn't suffer a significant income drop isn't very likely to strategically default IMO

It's a completely other matter if that worker got an interest only mortgage and was hoping his income would rise in the following years before it reverted to principal and interest and their income didn't rise for obvious reasons. But that's not a strategic default, that's inability to repay.

Plus if your mortgage if e.g. €1,000 a month and you can only afford to pay €500, you might as well pay nothing as your home is at risk either way. Still not a strategic default IMO

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

His case as a strategic defaulter makes perfect sense. His home is probably cross secured against his investment properties so he's right to strategically default until the end. Once he caves in, there's a good chance he loses his home even if he keeps up the home loan repayments but can't keep up the investment property loan repayments.

But a worker who didn't lose his job or didn't suffer a significant income drop isn't very likely to strategically default IMO

It's a completely other matter if that worker got an interest only mortgage and was hoping his income would rise in the following years before it reverted to principal and interest and their income didn't rise for obvious reasons. But that's not a strategic default, that's inability to repay.

Plus if your mortgage if e.g. €1,000 a month and you can only afford to pay €500, you might as well pay nothing as your home is at risk either way. Still not a strategic default IMO

I'm not saying every arrears case is a strategic defaulter - just that the volume is far greater than most people realise.

Cast your mind back. People thought property prices would never recover, everybody hated the banks, politicians were calling on them to take pain, lots of talk about banks doing deals on mortgages - but they weren't doing deals with the poor saps who were paying on time every time.

The biggest cause of your standard mortgage defaults is rising unemployment.

The biggest cause of strategic mortgage defaults is negative equity, irrespective of ability to pay.

Our arrears started off in 08 just like every other country in the GFC. Rising unemployment saw rising arrears. Why did Ireland's arrears start to rocket when unemployment started to fall?

The article I linked earlier offers an answer:

In fact, Moody's analysts note that the number of Irish delinquent on their mortgages shot higher in 2012, just as political discussions centered on the possibility of a large-scale debt forgiveness plan. (It never materialized.) Moody's suggested that the increase was driven--at least in part--by some who are gaming the system. "The current dearth of repossessions and the recently proposed personal insolvency legislation is starting to result in higher defaults due to moral hazard," the analysts wrote.

That's financial-speak for "people think they can get away without paying their mortgage because they know they're not going to lose their house." Gregory Connor, a professor of finance at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth, estimates that about 35% of those who have fallen into arrears on their mortgages have done so "strategically." That is, they can afford to pay, but just aren't.

There are any number of explanations for the dearth of Irish foreclosure. For one thing, Irish courts ruled in July 2011 that Ireland's recently revamped foreclosure law contains a massive loophole. Long story short, the judge found that the law allows lenders to foreclose only on mortgage loans made after Dec. 1, 2009, when the new law went into effect. After the judgement, arrears shot higher.

It's like the vacancies, or the obsolescence figures. What we're told may suggest it is implausible, but the numbers don't lie.

jill_valentine

PropQueries wrote: »

Plus if your mortgage if e.g. €1,000 a month and you can only afford to pay €500, you might as well pay nothing as your home is at risk either way. Still not a strategic default IMO

Whoa nelly. Making even a token payment brings you under the protections of the CCMA, which can make a very big difference when the pushing comes to shoving.

Paying nothing at all means you become a non-cooperating borrower, and even strategic defaulters would want to avoid that.

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

I'm not saying every arrears case is a strategic defaulter - just that the volume is far greater than most people realise.

Cast your mind back. People thought property prices would never recover, everybody hated the banks, politicians were calling on them to take pain, lots of talk about banks doing deals on mortgages - but they weren't doing deals with the poor saps who were paying on time every time.

The biggest cause of your standard mortgage defaults is rising unemployment.

The biggest cause of strategic mortgage defaults is negative equity, irrespective of ability to pay.

Our arrears started off in 08 just like every other country in the GFC. Rising unemployment saw rising arrears. Why did Ireland's arrears start to rocket when unemployment started to fall?

The article I linked earlier offers an answer:



It's like the vacancies, or the obsolescence figures. What we're told may suggest it is implausible, but the numbers don't lie.

Could it be due to the large number of regular people who borrowed money during the boom years to invest in another BTL property?

In that case, the primary home is also on the line even if they can meet their home loan but can't meet their BTL repayments? It also makes them gamblers i.e. "savvy investors".

That then doesn't make them strategic defaulters as in the same meaning as a regular working man choosing not to pay his mortgage on his one and only property i.e. his home?

I just wouldn't want regular working people with just one mortgage on one home getting caught up in the same net as people who gambled/invested during the boom years.

PropQueries

jill_valentine wrote: »

Whoa nelly. Making even a token payment brings you under the protections of the CCMA, which can make a very big difference when the pushing comes to shoving.

Paying nothing at all means you become a non-cooperating borrower, and even strategic defaulters would want to avoid that.

Good point. Very good point. They should definitely pay about a €5 a month. But definitely not anything near €500 even if they could afford it IMO

MacronvFrugals

PropQueries wrote: »

Could it be due to the large number of regular people who borrowed money during the boom years to invest in another BTL property?

.

I love the absurdity of this stat, in 2007 Bank Of Ireland gave more BTLs than FTB mortgages

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

Could it be due to the large number of regular people who borrowed money during the boom years to invest in another BTL property?

In that case, the primary home is also on the line even if they can meet their home loan but can't meet their BTL repayments? It also makes them gamblers i.e. "savvy investors".

That then doesn't make them strategic defaulters as in the same meaning as a regular working man choosing not to pay his mortgage on his one and only property i.e. his home?

I just wouldn't want regular working people with just one mortgage on one home getting caught up in the same net as people who gambled/invested during the boom years.

That's why the problem is so bad here. We've have created a grey area because we focus too much on the individual circumstances.

Other countries don't have a grey area. Its very simple:

You don't pay your mortgage, you don't keep your house.

Everybody knows where they stand, and they don't dick around when it comes to mortgage payments.

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

That's why the problem is so bad here. We've have created a grey area because we focus too much on the individual circumstances.

Other countries don't have a grey area. Its very simple:

You don't pay your mortgage, you don't keep your house.

Everybody knows where they stand, and they don't dick around when it comes to mortgage payments.

That's the thing. There shouldn't be a grey area. If you have a home and you cross-secured it to invest in a BTL in the boom years, your a professional investor in my eyes and should be treated accordingly e.g. easier repossessions.

But if you're a working man who bought a home during the boom years to house your family, you should receive a lot more support and options IMO.

It's incredibly easy to separate out the two and could be done in about half an hour by the central bank on an excel spreadsheet IMO

Just print out the two spreadsheets and say the ones on this sheet deserve some support and options. The ones on the other, take their property and turf them out. They're professional investors who would have most likely done the same to their tenants who couldn't pay the rent so a much harsher system applies.

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

That's the thing. There shouldn't be a grey area. If you have a home and you cross-secured it to invest in a BTL in the boom years, your a professional investor in my eyes and should be treated accordingly e.g. easier repossessions.

But if you're a working man who bought a home during the boom years to house your family, you should receive a lot more support and options IMO.

It's incredibly easy to separate out the two and could be done in about half an hour by the central bank on an excel spreadsheet IMO

The Central bank do separate the two and publish figures separately.

In Ireland there is no shortage of support and options (social housing, HAP etc) to people who cannot afford to house their family, and rightly so.

But allowing a build up of 10 years worth of mortgage arrears should not be one of them.

It should be simple. If you do not keep up your repayments the house will be repossessed.

Anything else leads to the plainly ludicrous idea that if you think you will lose your job, you should hurry up and buy a house at any price while you can still get a mortgage. These boards have shown us that this is what is considered a rational school of thought.

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

The Central bank do separate the two and publish figures separately.

In Ireland there is no shortage of support and options (social housing, HAP etc) to people who cannot afford to house their family, and rightly so.

But allowing a build up of 10 years worth of mortgage arrears should not be one of them.

It should be simple. If you do not keep up your repayments the house will be repossessed.

Anything else leads to the plainly ludicrous idea that if you think you will lose your job, you should hurry up and buy a house at any price while you can still get a mortgage. These boards have shown us that this is what is considered a rational school of thought.

Sort of agree If we lived in an economy with a properly functioning property market. It's not like in the states or the UK where you can probably walk down the street and rent another property tomorrow once your home has been repossessed.

But, yes, if you're a homeowner with a BTL who hasn't made repayments, you're out in three months. But if you're a regular person with one property (family home), a lot more options and leeway IMO.

And you must remember. Most of these supports the government goes on about didn't exist when we originally got into this problem so I can understand the skepticism of some of the more legitimate borrowers who defaulted in the first 5 years.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

That's why the problem is so bad here. We've have created a grey area because we focus too much on the individual circumstances.

Other countries don't have a grey area. Its very simple:

You don't pay your mortgage, you don't keep your house.

Everybody knows where they stand, and they don't dick around when it comes to mortgage payments.

Populism in this country stoops to a particularly low level. How bad can it be for this country when the largest opposition party is who they are and people are gullible enough / desperate enough / fed up enough to be willing to vote for them.