thousands to lose homes or thousands to lose their free living scam?

morrga · 10-04-2018 09:30PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why are the trackers non profitable? I don't believe that for a minute.

The margins ain’t near as profitable and many are non performing loans.

Arthur Daley · 10-04-2018 09:34PM

Joan Collins reported in the Dail a few weeks ago that there is a sizeable number of TDs who are using the David Hall Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation to deal with their arrears. Another few dozen TDs are big time landlords. So don't expect them to rock the boat on the current situation.

Ahhhh for forks sake! · 10-04-2018 09:36PM

I don't know what a tracker mortgage is.

suicide_circus · 10-04-2018 09:54PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

This is what happens when you have a country obsessed with owning property as the ultimate metric of success and achievement

- It's seen as a "right" regardless of your ability to actually pay for it
- The rental market is a disaster because everyone sees it as something to put up with on the glorious road to ownership, rather than the long term viable-in-itself option it SHOULD be. It doesn't help that many of the decision makers (TD's) are landlords themselves and doing quite well out of it again
- When your obsession with property results in sub-prime lending, you crash the economy and everyone else picks up the tab

Until Ireland gets past the idea that everyone should be able to (and should be entitled to!) buy property, then property will continue to cause serious problems in this country.

It's self perpetrating though. In the absence of proper long term and predictable rental leases of course people are going to buy to find some security away from the whims of landlords.

10000maniacs · 10-04-2018 10:07PM

I remember Marian Finucanes guests and even herself if I am not mistaken regularly arguing the case for defaulters by saying if the banks can be bailed out, why not the mortgage defaulters too? I was thinking that is a very reckless attitude to broadcast and a lot of people will take note and see it as a get out strategy to their financial woes.

Feisar · 10-04-2018 10:22PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

It's self perpetrating though. In the absence of proper long term and predictable rental leases of course people are going to buy to find some security away from the whims of landlords.

This. A lady that lived next door to me had rented for 13 years, owner decided to sell, so out she had to go. After paying half the mortgage (basically) she had to move out.
Ireland ain't set up for renting, especially after one retires and has a diminished income.

Varik · 10-04-2018 10:29PM

This bloody forum.

Landlords are being screwed over.

Many TD are landlords, so they're doing great.

donegaLroad · 10-04-2018 11:31PM

Varik wrote: »

This bloody forum.

Landlords are being screwed over.

Many TD are landlords, so they're doing great.

I know what you are saying, and I agree that there is a large vested interest in property among Ireland's politicians, but being a landlord is not the easy ride it used to be.

You would be much better off putting up a few windmills if you could get the planning permission.

accensi0n · 10-04-2018 11:42PM

Feisar wrote: »

This. A lady that lived next door to me had rented for 13 years, owner decided to sell, so out she had to go. After paying half the mortgage (basically) she had to move out.
Ireland ain't set up for renting, especially after one retires and has a diminished income.

She lived there for 13 years.
She did not pay any mortgage on that property.
She would have been given lots of notice due to length of time living there.

I fail to see the issue in your example.

suicide_circus · 10-04-2018 11:43PM

accensi0n wrote: »

She lived there for 13 years.
She did not pay any mortgage on that property.
She would have been given lots of notice due to length of time living there.

I fail to see the issue in your example.

I think the issue is that renting is inherently unstable with year to year leases.

CeilingFly · 10-04-2018 11:53PM

morrga wrote: »

It’s all down to the non profitable tracker mortgages and the sleeping population sitting on variables not bothering to ring up and fix.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Trackers are a few basis points above the ECB rate. If they aren’t making money now why were they making money to begin with?

Trackers were profitable and are profitable.

But for a period of about 3-4 years from 2009 to 2013 they were loss making when Irish banks were seen as troubled and very risky and thus bonds and market lending rates to Irish banks was substantially above ecb rates as there was a substantial risk margin

That improved with ecb bond purchasing and improvement in economy here which improved to such an extent that some Irish banks were able to issue short-term bonds at negative interest rates - even ptsb got a bond at negative 0.3% last year.

Jeff2 · 10-04-2018 11:53PM

Has this thread name changed or is was there another.

This new name has me more raged.

My opinion is you pay or get the Feck out of there.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 11-04-2018 12:02AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Yes because cost of funds is the only cost a bank has. Staff work for free. IT and systems maintenance and development is also free of course. Pensions payments to retired staff also free. And provisions for all those non paying bad debts....yup free as well. Not to mention setting aside capital against future losses....also free.

That’s a lot of sneering pseudo answers which doesn’t answer the question. I asked why tracker mortgages were unprofitable now if they were profitable then. I didn’t say banks have no costs”.

Tracker mortgages were set up at a certain level - a few basis points above the ECB rate which the banks can borrow at or from themselves. That was true then. It is true now.

None of those costs are new. Pensions existed then. IT systems cost money then. Setting aside capital happened then. People didn’t work for free then.

So if trackers made money during the boom why not now? And if the reason is it’s harder to make money at lower interest rates ( which I could accept with workings out) then that just means that the banks were run by greater Imbeciles than I thought, because — remember – they had to advertise to entice people to take out trackers as the average joe didn’t know what they were, and apparently hadn’t costed in lower interest rates.

Cretins.

Be populist to complain abou Ireland’s cretinous ruling class though so I’ll blame Tom and Mary who bought a semi detached house.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 11-04-2018 12:09AM

Maurice Riordan wrote: »

I don't know what a tracker mortgage is.

Neither did the banks.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 11-04-2018 12:12AM

CeilingFly wrote: »

Trackers were profitable and are profitable.

But for a period of about 3-4 years from 2009 to 2013 they were loss making when Irish banks were seen as troubled and very risky and thus bonds and market lending rates to Irish banks was substantially above ecb rates as there was a substantial risk margin

That improved with ecb bond purchasing and improvement in economy here which improved to such an extent that some Irish banks were able to issue short-term bonds at negative interest rates - even ptsb got a bond at negative 0.3% last year.

Sorry missed this sane answer since I replied to the idiot post about banks having costs so that explains their losses, as I encountered it first.

Thanks for a reasonable answer. Makes sense.

So we’ve established that trackers are profitable now. Why are other variable interest rates so high.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 11-04-2018 12:20AM

accensi0n wrote: »

She lived there for 13 years.
She did not pay any mortgage on that property.
She would have been given lots of notice due to length of time living there.

I fail to see the issue in your example.

I think you’re explaining, however unwittingly, why people don’t see renting as a long term solution in Ireland.

Jeff2 · 11-04-2018 12:53AM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I think you’re explaining, however unwittingly, why people don’t see renting as a long term solution in Ireland.

Have you tried renting.,,,?

Graces7 · 11-04-2018 09:41AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

It's self perpetrating though. In the absence of proper long term and predictable rental leases of course people are going to buy to find some security away from the whims of landlords.

Oh so true. I am in deep relief now as I am in a council property and realisng how stressed I was all the years I was renting privately. Heartsink of seeing the LL stroll down the drive with a letter in his hand and knowing.... shudders. Never again.

Graces7 · 11-04-2018 09:42AM

Jeff2 wrote: »

Have you tried renting.,,,?

lol...

Graces7 · 11-04-2018 09:45AM

accensi0n wrote: »

She lived there for 13 years.
She did not pay any mortgage on that property.
She would have been given lots of notice due to length of time living there.

I fail to see the issue in your example.

It was her home. And her rent paid the mortgage.

Chips Lovell · 11-04-2018 09:52AM

Ipso wrote: »

As has been mentioned in the past, as long as there are long term non performing mortgages you can kiss lower rates goodbye.
No business will charge lower rates when there is the risk of non payment.

Don't get me wrong, I think the level of arrears (c.10%) feeds into the higher rates. As does the number of restructured loans and trackers, which the banks have been losing money on.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 11-04-2018 09:52AM

Jeff2 wrote: »

Have you tried renting.,,,?

I have. Most people have. My circumstances are irrelevant to this debate or to my answer

Franz Von Peppercorn · 11-04-2018 09:57AM

To those of you who think that the rental or housing crisis is caused by high home ownership ( which is statistically untrue) then you should realise that in countries where people are prepared to rent for life they have secure tenure for life. Unlimited terms. Average rental period in Germany is 11 years. Generally tenure is assured although non payment is generally accepted for eviction. You can’t remove tenants because you want to give your house to a relative or sell. You sell with tenant intact.

CeilingFly · 11-04-2018 10:31AM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

To those of you who think that the rental or housing crisis is caused by high home ownership ( which is statistically untrue) then you should realise that in countries where people are prepared to rent for life they have secure tenure for life. Unlimited terms. Average rental period in Germany is 11 years. Generally tenure is assured although non payment is generally accepted for eviction. You can’t remove tenants because you want to give your house to a relative or sell. You sell with tenant intact.

But in germany you rent the 4 walls and empty space inside - totally unfurnished, no flooring, no appliances, nada, unless you rent something that was previously rented and items left behind.

You are also responsible for all taxes and charges.

It would be good for that type of model to be offered here in addition to current model.

Landlord is only responsible for the physical structure - everything else including internal plumbing and wiring is responsibility of tenant.

Turfcutter · 13-04-2018 12:02AM

It has long bugged how how there are thousands of squatters in the country living for free. The CAN pay but WON'T pay brigade.
They've been knocking years out of it, and there is little sign the problem will be resolved any time soon.

Very few people are willing to come out against this in public, due to how they'd be lit on by the usual suspects.

At a banking hearing in 2014, someone from the bank's pointed out that about 30% of mortgage defaulters had incomes and savings well in excess of their mortgage amounts but were choosing not to pay.

David Hall has more or less been given a free ride in the media to peddle the line that there are no strategic defaulters and everything is the bank's fault.

CeilingFly · 13-04-2018 10:56PM

Turfcutter wrote: »

It has long bugged how how there are thousands of squatters in the country living for free. The CAN pay but WON'T pay brigade.
They've been knocking years out of it, and there is little sign the problem will be resolved any time soon.

Very few people are willing to come out against this in public, due to how they'd be lit on by the usual suspects.

At a banking hearing in 2014, someone from the bank's pointed out that about 30% of mortgage defaulters had incomes and savings well in excess of their mortgage amounts but were choosing not to pay.

David Hall has more or less been given a free ride in the media to peddle the line that there are no strategic defaulters and everything is the bank's fault.

The media will only change when public reaction changes.

The media are sheep. Esp the hysterical sensationalist media like the indo group.

But people are getting sick and tired of the take take take group in society that give absolutely nothing back - you just need to look at how SF have stalled and aaa etc have fallen back.

Even within areas that the take take take types are prevalent, people are starting to realise there are better options out there and life can be better.

I even reckon Paul Murphy will lose his seat at next election.

_Kaiser_ · 13-04-2018 11:39PM

CeilingFly wrote: »

The media will only change when public reaction changes.

The media are sheep. Esp the hysterical sensationalist media like the indo group.

But people are getting sick and tired of the take take take group in society that give absolutely nothing back - you just need to look at how SF have stalled and aaa etc have fallen back.

Even within areas that the take take take types are prevalent, people are starting to realise there are better options out there and life can be better.

I even reckon Paul Murphy will lose his seat at next election.

The problem with this idea though is that the "take take take types" aren't the stereotypical unemployed/waster/sponger sort that are always fallen back on in these arguments.... but instead normal middle class types who have jobs, can pay but won't.

It does explain why the situation has been let drag on as long as it has, as these people make up quite a sizable percentage of potential FG voters.. not Paul Murphy, SF, AAA etc.

Hitman3000 · 13-04-2018 11:47PM

CeilingFly wrote:

I even reckon Paul Murphy will lose his seat at next election.

Doubt it, tbh.

Colonel Claptrap · 15-04-2018 07:28AM

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Doubt it, tbh.

I also don't think he will lose his seat.

But there has been a noticeable backlash in his constituency. I know several people who regret voting for him following the thuggery at Jobstown. People are ashamed of what happened at Lidl and blame Murphy for the stereotypes associated with Tallaght.

fyfe79 · 15-04-2018 07:59AM

CeilingFly wrote: »

Trackers were profitable and are profitable.

But for a period of about 3-4 years from 2009 to 2013 they were loss making when Irish banks were seen as troubled and very risky and thus bonds and market lending rates to Irish banks was substantially above ecb rates as there was a substantial risk margin

That improved with ecb bond purchasing and improvement in economy here which improved to such an extent that some Irish banks were able to issue short-term bonds at negative interest rates - even ptsb got a bond at negative 0.3% last year.

Also the reason banks have begun offering the chance for tracker-holders to hold on to their trackers when they move house. During the 2009-2013 years, if you needed to move house for whatever reason, thus changing the terms of your mortgage, tough... there goes your tracker. Banks were begging for people to come off their trackers and were delighted when any opportunity arrived for them to make that happen, such as a house move.

Now, if you want/need to move house, you can keep your tracker (admittedly, with an extra 1% or so tacked on), on the out-standing amount from the original loan, before switching to the variable rate for the remainder (top-up amount). Granted, it's not an easy thing to do, as you need to sell your house and buy your new one on pretty much the same day, but the fact that the banks' offer it at all shows that trackers aren't as non-profitable for them as they used to be.

thousands to lose homes or thousands to lose their free living scam?

Comments