Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

29 property suicides leave State unmoved

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    hmmm you do realise that in normal property markets rental yield is related to property value? If it's impossible to rent out a city centre property it'll be pretty difficult to get a reasonable sale price for the shoebox.
    I didn't say it would be impossible to rent, and the price depends on how you define "reasonable". If they could cover their outstanding debt with the sale price, they wouldn't be in negative equity.
    How can they can get this larger house for the same price despite it renting for a larger amount? This is the greatest issue I have with your proposal.
    The nutshell of what you're talking about is adding another bill (rent-definite) on top of their mortgage, and hoping that they can rent out their own place twelve months a year (a shoebox, not that easy) and hoping the two rents are equivalent or the shoebox gets a higher rent. Its normal practise to assume at least two months a year empty.
    Or do you have another proposal to allow this hypothetical family sell an apartment that no one wants to rent? A National Shoebox Management Agency?
    ...
    so less of the sarcasm please.
    Indeed. Properties are selling if the price is right. You might not be able to cover an equivalent rent+mortgage by renting out your small property, but someone who takes it off your hands at a discount might be able to get a decent return.
    The benefits of renting out their PPR- you mean tax relief? That's a fairly small portion of one's mortgage payments; and is dependent on the Gov. If the Gov wants to free up the rental market they can level the playing field for people trapped by Negative Equity.
    I don't understand what you mean here. Can you clarify it please?
    "insisting on large deposits" - your proposal involves a bank giving out a loan greater than the value of the new property... so that's a negative deposit... I'm all for proper due diligence and hefty deposits -
    If the mortgage amount remains the same, the risk remains the same. Not a negative deposit. In fact if the property is larger in the long term it will probably hold its value better.
    Quoting a speculative Sindo article as research... :rolleyes: How precisely does this fit into your proposal to allow ordinary families (rather than the developers cited above) move out of their shoebox apartment?
    You were the one looking for the difference in bankruptcy terms. As for the Independent article (released on a Thursday), there are plenty of firms in the UK actively offering assistance to Irish people of every sort that want to move to the UK for the purposes of bankruptcy. As previously mentioned, google it.
    You have made a proposal to turn the norms of lending upside down;
    Debt transfer is turning lending upside down? Its very simple, add one debt to another - its called debt consolidation and its fairly established practise.
    several friends and acquaintances have rented out their places as they know they can't sell - they are getting on with life and it don't need some convoluted Bank/Government Solution that would be ripe for corrupt banking practices as it relies on new unsecured loans (you haven't addressed that).
    Thats great, and I'm happy they are getting on with life, but anecdotes aside its not that simple for a lot of people; you've already made reference in your own post to those who are trapped. I'm also a bit mystified as to how you would call it convoluted - its very straightforward.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭Tea drinker


    iguana wrote: »
    Did anybody else think of this when they read that article;





    http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_1010514.shtml
    Yep, I thought of that. Irony is apparently an Irish politician.
    And apparently David McWilliams was attacked last week for being a doom monger!

    But everyone nees to take responsibility. These guys didn't vote themselves in, the majority asked for it, and now they got what they asked for.
    I am in favour of IQ testing before being allowed to vote. A lot of people who mindlessly ticked boxes because "daddy ticked this one" need to shoulder responibility for this treason.

    You can add people needlessy dying, unread x-rays etc to the heap, lets see how many are really dead because of the brain donors at the ballot box


  • Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭alejandro1977


    Amhran Nua wrote: »


    The nutshell of what you're talking about is adding another bill (rent-definite) on top of their mortgage, and hoping that they can rent out their own place twelve months a year (a shoebox, not that easy) and hoping the two rents are equivalent or the shoebox gets a higher rent. Its normal practise to assume at least two months a year empty.


    Indeed. Properties are selling if the price is right. You might not be able to cover an equivalent rent+mortgage by renting out your small property, but someone who takes it off your hands at a discount might be able to get a decent return.

    I am well aware that it is normal practice to allow a gap in rental. I am not assuming that the shoebox will get a similar or higher rent - it won't - the entire premise of your whole debt transferring idea is based on the assumption that someone can sell a shoebox and get a 3 bed "a bit further out" for a similar price. This is not happening - there is a huge over supply of apartments and relatively short supply of family homes in comparison; if you think that you can swap a shoebox for a 3 bed for only 50k extra you are sorely mistaken. You also assumed that the shoebox buyer had paid off 50K off of a 350k mortgage - anyone who paid 350k 5 years ago on a 40 year mortgage has paid off much less than this. You wrote "Properties are selling if the price is right" - a fire sale won't get within an asses roar of the price for a nice family home "a bit further out"

    I don't understand what you mean here. Can you clarify it please?
    Are you aware of the 75% interest write off for rental properties? (used be 100%) This is unfair for some one who wishes to move jobs and rent out his curent property and rent another close to new job etc.
    If the mortgage amount remains the same, the risk remains the same.
    Noooooo!
    The risk on a mortgage is related to the loan to value ratio. This is the most fatal flaw in your whole proposal
    In fact if the property is larger in the long term it will probably hold its value better.
    "Probably" - Speculative, there are a plethora of other factors.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    the entire premise of your whole debt transferring idea is based on the assumption that someone can sell a shoebox and get a 3 bed "a bit further out" for a similar price. This is not happening -
    Now, I've already mentioned why this is happening. The returns on say a €350,000 investment with a rent of €800 per month, are what, somewhere under 3%, which is ridiculous, even if you ignore interest and other payments entirely. If the property was sold for €150,000, it becomes more like 7%, which is a lot more attractive to BTL investors.
    relatively short supply of family homes in comparison; if you think that you can swap a shoebox for a 3 bed for only 50k extra you are sorely mistaken.
    Depends on where the family home is, and whether or not its an apartment with more than one bedroom.
    You also assumed that the shoebox buyer had paid off 50K off of a 350k mortgage - anyone who paid 350k 5 years ago on a 40 year mortgage has paid off much less than this.
    I believe the standard mortgage term was 30 years - besides, in terms of front loaded interest the banks will probably need to be flexible, as they have been already with thousands of other renegotiated mortgages.
    You wrote "Properties are selling if the price is right" - a fire sale won't get within an asses roar of the price for a nice family home "a bit further out"
    It doesn't need to, if you can carry over the negative equity.
    The risk on a mortgage is related to the loan to value ratio. This is the most fatal flaw in your whole proposal
    You keep pointing our fatal flaws - I don't think that word means what you think it means. If the long term prospects for a shoebox are that it will drop to a very low price, and the long term prospects for a larger property are that it won't fall so far or fast, which risk is larger, given the additional strain put on the family by the addition of a new member or members of their household?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭shoegirl


    You've completely ignored the substantive point. Why do they need to own their house? What's wrong with renting?

    The problem with renting is that people live longer and wish to retire at some point. Most people outside of the public sector have insufficient pensions and thus left with the option of a 25-30 year mortgage after which they need to make no more capital payments or else rent for maybe 40-50 years during which they will still need to make payments, which may well continue to rise.

    This would leave a large number of people unable to ever retire.

    Its easy talking but I rent because I'm not in a position to buy, I find rents obscene considering the appalling standards of what I get for the money I pay, even compared to friends who bought at the height of the boom, and I live in morbid terror of what is going to happen in 30 years time if I don't find something. If people are encouraged to rent perpetually we could end up with a huge crisis in housing for elders in 30 years time.

    I am not even saying the ONLY answer should be buying, but there are simply no options for working single people other than either privately renting on the market or buying. Social housing is simply not open to you and the very few hybrid alternatives are not widely available. I don't particularly want to buy but neither do I want to be unable to retire at 67/8 because I wouldn't be able to afford my rent.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    A good start might be to allow people to sell their houses and carry over the difference to a new mortgage, returning a little mobility to people who might for example have kids on the way but are stuck in a shoebox.



    NO!!!!!!!!!!

    You walk off the job. WHY? WHY? would you honour you obligations when the bank hasn't honoured theirs'?

    Walk off the job and let the pigs try to dispose of the house. Simple!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,626 ✭✭✭Blackjack


    NO!!!!!!!!!!

    You walk off the job. WHY? WHY? would you honour you obligations when the bank hasn't honoured theirs'?

    Walk off the job and let the pigs try to dispose of the house. Simple!

    A well thought through solution, very well thought through.

    I'm surprised more people haven't decided to go with this fantastic idea of yours.:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    NO!!!!!!!!!!

    You walk off the job. WHY? WHY? would you honour you obligations when the bank hasn't honoured theirs'?

    Walk off the job and let the pigs try to dispose of the house. Simple!

    yeah good idea. You do realise you still have to pay the debt ANYWAY :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Let Darwin do his work we will be better off

    Wow! The very theory that allowed the Famine! Trevalyan lives!

    I've heard of three men who committed suicide in the last few weeks. One had painful health problems and severe financial pressure, and shot himself. Another was a banker who had just had a talk with investigators and came home and hanged himself. Another was a father of young children who hanged himself; he was crushed by mortgage debt.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,314 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    I've heard of three men who committed suicide in the last few weeks. One had painful health problems and severe financial pressure, and shot himself. Another was a banker who had just had a talk with investigators and came home and hanged himself. Another was a father of young children who hanged himself; he was crushed by mortgage debt.
    Sh|t happens, and some people don't see a way out. As someone once said of suicide; "a permanent solution for a temporary problem".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    the_syco wrote: »
    Sh|t happens, and some people don't see a way out. As someone once said of suicide; "a permanent solution for a temporary problem".

    Very true.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,441 ✭✭✭planetX


    also plenty of people getting badly depressed due to long-term renting:(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Mainly, though, it's two things. One is the stress - I was just looking at an Al-Jazeera report about Vancouver, in which a financier said that the "safe" level of spending was to spend one-third of your income on your property. I'd say there are a lot of Irish people who spend a lot more than that.

    The second is that when people kill themselves, it opens up this possibility to others. So when people are in desperate straits, they still have the usual thoughts: "Stay steady and it'll straighten out; we can work this out if we just set up a budget; worse things have happened; at least we still have our health; who needs to be rich, we're honest, good people and we'll get through this" - but they also have that cruel choice: "I could just end it all".

    They may not think of the horrifying grief and chaos they leave behind them.


Advertisement