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
Mortgage Arrears Problem in Ireland.
Options
Comments
-
This is probally a stupid statement.why can't banks just drop interest rates and people just pay what they actually owe. seen as the banks at the moment are not going to make money off these loans surely its better that way. though it sounds to easy0
-
whats the implications for someone that surrenders / quits the mortgage seen as they cant keep up the payments? ive heard stories bout not being able get credit card for x amount of years, blacklisted, etc. hearing all the time about repossessions too and people handing back the keys, what then for these people??0
-
This is probally a stupid statement.why can't banks just drop interest rates and people just pay what they actually owe. seen as the banks at the moment are not going to make money off these loans surely its better that way. though it sounds to easy
Banks lend long but borrow short. As such the interest rates are set by the European central bank and not the banks themselves. Also many mortgage holders are struggling to pay what they owe as it is and unfortunately their assets are worth less than what they owe.0 -
Scholesy1981 wrote: »whats the implications for someone that surrenders / quits the mortgage seen as they cant keep up the payments? ive heard stories bout not being able get credit card for x amount of years, blacklisted, etc. hearing all the time about repossessions too and people handing back the keys, what then for these people??
Thats true if they declare bankruptcy. Personally I would like to see bankruptcy laws in Ireland updated so that the "x" amount of years is defined (probably somewhere between 5-7 years) and after that their bankruptcy records is expunged.0 -
- These people owe substantial amounts of money to the bank, which they are now behind on repayments in (which I assume accrues further interest)
- If their houses are repossessed and possibly resold, it will not clear this debt.The houses will sell for less than what they were bought for.That is practically a given, with the way the market is.
- These people then move into rented accommodation (assuming they can afford that), possibly paid for by the State.
- So now you have a situation whereby the taxpayer is paying/subsidising their rent, and there's still a hole in the bank's mortgage books - which the taxpayer ends up paying for.
Regarding the comment above about "a hole in the bank's mortgage books which the taxpayer ends up paying for", this is true but it is an open question whether it is a bigger hole or smaller hole than if the non-paying mortgage holder is left in the house. If the house has an outstanding mortgage of €200k but the house sells for €150k then, long term, there is a potential loss to the bank of €50k. But that loss materialises only if the mortgage holder never pays back the €50k or if it is forgiven as some sort of blanket accommodation to deal with the NE issue. But right now, when the banks are relying on the taxpayer for liquidity, the proceeds of the sale of that house represent €150k less that the tax payer will have to inject into the banks this year and €150k less that the state will have to borrow from the IMF/ECB at 5.7% this year.Your point about them tying up houses and distorting the market - how is that the case? They cannot sell because they are in NE, and can't make up the difference between the price they bought for and the price they would sell for.Therefore they are simply living in their homes.Which is what most people do anyway.House prices are dropping, regardless. Renters payments are governed by their landlords, most of whom need to cover similar massive mortgages.Repossessing their rental properties doesn't change the situation either.They will sell for less than they were bought for. If they are currently distorting the market, then what you are obviously saying is that house prices need to drop much further (which I agree with you, they've a way to go yet). But, in this context, that widens the gap even further between what's owed and what's taken in on the sale.Thereby creating an even bigger hole on the bank's books, inevitably requiring more taxpayer money.By advocating that people should be thrown out of their homes, etc,etc, all that is being done is moving the debt burden around. It doesn't remove the debt, which surely should be the end point to all of this - clearing as much of the debt as possible.We need to weigh up the long term benefits of allowing people to stay in their homes and arrange plans to pay back what they can by whatever means possible, vs repossession and sale on the open market by the banks (who will be trying to get as much as possible for the house, surely, and buoy the market even further). This is not a short term thing, they are sums that need to be done for a period of 15-20-30 years.Repossessions here and now might remove the mortgage arrears statistics, but it doesn't make the debt go away.While I completely agree the taxpayer shouldn't have to be involved in this at all, I still think there are ways around this that don't involve repossessing every property that's in arrears.
OK, despite what I wrote in the beginning, I did drift in to advocating solutions but I hope it is clear that I don't think the solutions should be of the "f**k them, it's their own tough $h*t" variety.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is probally a stupid statement.why can't banks just drop interest rates and people just pay what they actually owe. seen as the banks at the moment are not going to make money off these loans surely its better that way. though it sounds to easy0
-
Thanks Sarumite!!!:o (you'd think I'd know how to do that by now)
I do agree with most of what you're saying unrealistic, but we (and it) appear to be going round in circles with these arguments.
In short, it would seem that the banks/Gov need to weigh up the long term vs the short term, as I said in my other post. I presume that's something that we ordinary folk don't have access to data for; each individual bank will know what's on it's books and who is paying (or not paying) what.
They also need to weigh up the benefits of trying release property onto the market now at a lesser price vs allowing people to stay in them...which feeds back into knowing what's on their books and what people can stay..ie calculating the risk factors.
The argument could also be made against "getting the market moving"...in which direction? Houses will go to sustainable prices, but how long would they stay there, and would we find ourselves again in situation where house prices would rise, and people would be selling to make profits??
I do agree with say "categorising" those who are in arrears - ie buy to let and equity release.But in the overall picture of the number of people who are in arrears, how many of them are those people? What I'm trying to say is how much of an impact on the problem would there be to solely focus on these people?
We come back to the same point. A multiple pronged approach is needed. I don't actually know if banks are better off to let people stay and pay what they can (assuming they'll be better off in terms of a job, etc in a few years time and can pay more), or if they're better to cut their losses and move the mortgage and property off their books. Without seeing some very detailed numbers it's hard to say. But I suppose it would seem to me that it would make more sense in the long run to leave people in their homes, paying what they can through varied restructuring plans - interest -free, interest-only, extended terms (which could be shortened at a later date again), brief payment "holidays", etc, etc....along with new regulations by the Gov forbidding 100% mortgages, requiring a certain deposit or long mortgage terms.(the point of this being to prevent the market from exploding again, should things start moving too fast and recklessly - again).
From a taxpayer's point of view in this discussion, I suppose we should also keep in mind to what extent we want to be bailing the banks out.We've pumped so much money in at this stage....what solution(s) minimises the holes in bank's books created by mortgage arrears and defaults, in order to prevent us picking the tab again. I still don't believe the solution is to push people out and have the state subsidise their subsequent rent.It doesn't make sense to me at all.
I apologise if my posts are somewhat confused. However I agree with you Unrealistic, the "f&*k them" approach is not an option, because if that's the way we go, the taxpayer will end up paying one way or the other.0 -
but their making a loss already also a large proportion of mortgage payments is interest. Thanks for the replies.0
-
I do agree with say "categorising" those who are in arrears - ie buy to let and equity release.But in the overall picture of the number of people who are in arrears, how many of them are those people? What I'm trying to say is how much of an impact on the problem would there be to solely focus on these people?
1) anecdotal evidence suggests that interest only mortgages were a most significant phenomenon in the buy to let sector.
2) people who would make such a financially unsound decision as to put their house at risk to fund a fancy car or holiday (equity release) are more likely to have been reckless in their financial behaviour generally and to find themselves in trouble now that the the economy is tighter.The argument could also be made against "getting the market moving"...in which direction? Houses will go to sustainable prices, but how long would they stay there, and would we find ourselves again in situation where house prices would rise, and people would be selling to make profits??....along with new regulations by the Gov forbidding 100% mortgages, requiring a certain deposit or long mortgage terms.(the point of this being to prevent the market from exploding again, should things start moving too fast and recklessly - again).0
Advertisement