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

Do you personally know anyone who.

124

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    tsoparno wrote: »
    there's a new needy out there called the workers and if their not helped the bill for dole and social housing will be even greater.
    which will be greater i don't know
    So we tax the workers more? :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Fair enough Monty. I just think the bank staff should all be fired and shot at dawn too. Just shareholders getting stiffed, while fair, seems inadequate :pac:
    Certainly the staff senior enough to make these stupid lending decisions and those who were supposed to be in charge of risk management could do with a good hiding.


  • Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭tsoparno


    So we tax the workers more? :confused:

    its going to happen either way if they get help tax's rise,if they default and get social housing tax's go up


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    tsoparno wrote: »
    its going to happen either way if they get help tax's rise,if they default and get social housing tax's go up
    If we pay off people's debts, taxes will go up much more for reasons I've outlined several times already. And if we don't share the debts, we benefit from more realistically priced property with all the good that that brings.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    The only reason for the government to procrastinate on allowing for mass eviction is because it doesn't want a proper property crash

    Blame Nama


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭tsoparno


    If we pay off people's debts, taxes will go up much more for reasons I've outlined several times already. And if we don't share the debts, we benefit from more realistically priced property with all the good that that brings.

    point taken, but i feel the government BS around and leaving uncertainty is whats driving these arguments like i said nobody has the answers and even if someone does we can rest assured the government won't adopt it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    tsoparno wrote: »
    point taken, but i feel the government BS around and leaving uncertainty is whats driving these arguments

    I have heard absolutely no hint from the government that any kind of blanket forgiveness scheme is even slightly, tiny, a little bit possible.

    The BS is all emanating from the meejah, and what's driving this argument is a consensus that negative equity is bad news for journalists, pundits and their social circle.


  • Registered Users Posts: 436 ✭✭Spiritofthekop


    I have heard absolutely no hint from the government that any kind of blanket forgiveness scheme is even slightly, tiny, a little bit possible.

    The BS is all emanating from the meejah, and what's driving this argument is a consensus that negative equity is bad news for journalists, pundits and their social circle.

    100% CORRECT.


  • Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭tsoparno


    I have heard absolutely no hint from the government that any kind of blanket forgiveness scheme is even slightly, tiny, a little bit possible.

    The BS is all emanating from the meejah, and what's driving this argument is a consensus that negative equity is bad news for journalists, pundits and their social circle.

    i never said anything bout blanket scheme but noonan has spoken on it but left it vague which created these hypothetical arguments
    http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/noonan-weighs-in-again-on-mortgage-debt-promising-help-2862039.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭AltAccount


    mariaalice wrote: »
    I don't know if this it the right place for this.

    Part of the objection to mortgage forgiveness seems to be based on the belief that people used the equity in there house to fund a lavish lifestyle because interest rated were low, or that people were silly to pay the prices they did for there house.

    But do you personally know anyone who behaved like that I am not talking of the anecdote we all here about someones friends cousins who re mortgaged and got a BMW, had the kitchen gold plated, and brought a holiday home in Spain.

    I personally don't know anyone who behaved like that and I come from a large family and would know a large amount of people.

    I think the vast majority of people who are experiencing difficulty are there because of under employment or unemployment or wage cuts.

    Not many people answering the OP's question with experiences of friends who may have lived lavish lifestyles, or maybe nobody willing to admit it.

    I know of a couple of instances that deserve discussion:

    Friends A: These friends are currently missing morgage payments. They've spoken to the bank and gotten a "deal" on reduced payments, but missed payments on the "deal" and so now are getting letters from the bank.
    Same friends have been to Glastonbury and Electric Picnic as well as travelling to the continent for a break this summer. Obviously paying the mortgage isn't that high of a priority.

    Friends B: Released €40k in equity from their house to pay for a fancy wedding, flat screen TV, entertainment system etc.

    Aquaintance A: Released equity in his home in 2007 in order to fund lifestyle spending including a brand new Audi Q7 (€80k+).


    I'm sure there are lots more incidences of this kind of thing out there, including people who borrowed 100%+ mortgages and used the surplus to buy stuff for the house (big TV etc). Dunno how many will admit it at this stage though...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,081 ✭✭✭fricatus


    But if you've no equity in your home, how exactly do you do a debt for equity swap?

    Here's an example:

    2006: you buy a house for 350k with a 35k deposit, 315k mortgage
    2011: house now worth 200k, you're having difficulties paying the mortgage which has 300k left. You're 100k in negative equity.
    Bank agrees to a debt-for-equity swap in which it takes 50% of your house and writes off 50% of the mortgage
    2012: you have a much more manageable 150k mortgage. You're still in negative equity, but to the tune of 50k

    When the time comes, and you sell the property, you split the proceeds 50:50 (or whatever ratio) with the bank. Now let's say in 2020, you've paid down the mortgage to 100k outstanding.

    Negative scenario: 2020 and the property market is still flat. You sell the house for 200k. The bank gets 100k and you pay off the outstanding mortgage, with maybe a couple of shillings left over.

    Positive scenario: 2020 and the property market has boomed again (is that actually a positive scenario? :rolleyes:) and the house is worth 400k when you sell it. The bank gets 200k back from its investment (originally a write-off) of 150k. You take your 200k and pay off the 100k mortgage.

    Happy days, you can use that 100k as a deposit on 6 investment properties in Vietnam, sold to you by a guy in the RDS!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    fricatus wrote: »
    Here's an example:

    2006: you buy a house for 350k with a 35k deposit, 315k mortgage
    2011: house now worth 200k, you're having difficulties paying the mortgage which has 300k left. You're 100k in negative equity.
    Bank agrees to a debt-for-equity swap in which it takes 50% of your house and writes off 50% of the mortgage

    But that's not a debt for equity swap, is it? The bank already has a loan secured against 100% of your property. You have no equity, so you can't swap it for anything.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,582 ✭✭✭swampgas


    fricatus wrote: »
    Here's an example:

    2006: you buy a house for 350k with a 35k deposit, 315k mortgage
    2011: house now worth 200k, you're having difficulties paying the mortgage which has 300k left. You're 100k in negative equity.
    Bank agrees to a debt-for-equity swap in which it takes 50% of your house and writes off 50% of the mortgage
    2012: you have a much more manageable 150k mortgage. You're still in negative equity, but to the tune of 50k

    When the time comes, and you sell the property, you split the proceeds 50:50 (or whatever ratio) with the bank. Now let's say in 2020, you've paid down the mortgage to 100k outstanding.

    Negative scenario: 2020 and the property market is still flat. You sell the house for 200k. The bank gets 100k and you pay off the outstanding mortgage, with maybe a couple of shillings left over.

    Positive scenario: 2020 and the property market has boomed again (is that actually a positive scenario? :rolleyes:) and the house is worth 400k when you sell it. The bank gets 200k back from its investment (originally a write-off) of 150k. You take your 200k and pay off the 100k mortgage.

    Happy days, you can use that 100k as a deposit on 6 investment properties in Vietnam, sold to you by a guy in the RDS!

    I don't think percentages work here - if the debt is reduced by amount X, then the same value X has to be secured against the asset some time in the future.

    I would modify that as follows: the bank defers debt by 157k then they are guaranteed the outstanding debt on the mortgage, also that 157k, and also if it sells for enough whatever interest would have been earned by the bank on the 157k in the interim, when the house is sold.


    Here's that example again - I hope I get the numbers right - and I'm assuming an interest rate of 4% which I pulled out of thin air.

    2006: you buy a house for 350k with a 35k deposit, 315k mortgage

    2011: house now worth 200k, you're having difficulties paying the mortgage which has 300k left. You're 100k in negative equity.

    Bank agrees to defer 150k of the 300k mortgage.

    2012: you have a much more manageable mortgage payments based on 150k. You're still in negative equity to the tune of 100k. However, you are not paying any interest on the deferred 150k - so in effect the bank is giving you an interest free loan of 150k until you sell up and settle up.

    When the time comes, and you sell the property, you first have to pay the 150k plus the remaining mortgage. Now let's say in 2020, you've paid down the mortgage to 100k outstanding.

    2020: Negative scenario:
    The property market is still flat. You think about selling the house for 200k. You would still owe the bank 100k mortgage plus 150k deferred. The interest owed on on the 150k would be written off. Bank takes a hit of 63k (9 years @ 4%), you take a hit of 50k., which you would still owe. Almost even division of pain, yes? Or maybe wait a few more years to pay more off the mortgage and hope prices rise?
    (I also think the bank should be able to veto the sale if they think the selling price is too low, to protect against gaming the system.)

    2020: Positive scenario:
    The property market has boomed again (is that actually a positive scenario? ) and the house is worth 400k when you sell it. The bank gets 100k outstanding mortgage, 150k deferred payment, and as much of the interest on 150k that is available from the selling price. Lets say 4% compounded over 9 years again - total of 100k + 200k + 63k = 363k, leaving you with 57k in hand, and the bank got repaid in full.

    Also, to your benefit, for the duration of the mortgage you were paying a lot less in payments, as your payments were half what they should have been, so you shouldn't really complain much either.

    A downside for the bank is that if the market remains flat, they are going to take a hit in lost interest on every sale. They also stand to lose a lot more if interest rates rise. And they have a vested interest in another bubble ...

    * Edit: I still think this is letting people off too easily ...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,081 ✭✭✭fricatus


    ^^

    Yeah my example wasn't meant to be definitive, just illustrative... I have no clue how much of the loan would be written off for how much of the house. Presumably they'd just do a deal and there would be an amount of negotiation.

    But that's not a debt for equity swap, is it? The bank already has a loan secured against 100% of your property. You have no equity, so you can't swap it for anything.

    Why not? You're swapping part of the debt you owe the bank for co-ownership of an asset (=equity).

    Sure you don't own the asset yet - but you're giving the bank a share in the future equity on the house.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,451 ✭✭✭Delancey


    The issue of ' Moral Hazard ' must be considered in any discussion of mortgage debt forgiveness.
    Why should a family struggle and make sacrifices to pay their mortgage when their next door neighbour did not and as a reward had (say) a hundred grand wiped off their debt ?
    The nonsense spouted about a debt forgiveness scheme ignores the certainty that mortage defaults will soar if any ' scheme ' is introduced - defaults can only be handled on a case by case basis.

    I think the focus should be on reform of the Dickensian bankruptcy laws.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 638 ✭✭✭theTinker


    This thread has derailed from the OP and would be better suited to Economy forum now.

    Back to OP:
    Yes, I know of 2 very extreme cases. Well 2 people in one case!
    2 friends I know, bought FOUR properties as investments.

    Another friend who was a mortgage broker with a big flashy car advised and secured thier loans. Apparentily they took 2 mortgages out, and time 2 more to be drawn down just after the first 2. That way the forms questioning all thier current finance loans etc were extremely clean and 100% honest..
    They now have 1.2 million in loans and are on interest only from what i know. Massive equity lost. I hate it all because i care deeply for one... but He no longer has that smug attitude constantly stating "I've over a million quid in property. I doubt ill notice another 20k"...when refering to a new car he was buying...
    I doubt he'll notice any money in his life now...

    Its shameful that 2 people on 35k a year could ever get thier hands on this much money...

    The disgust then came a year after the crash when the broker who set them up with all this...offered my friend his car for a great price... Hope the snobby broker took a nice release for that one..


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


    theTinker wrote: »
    This thread has derailed from the OP and would be better suited to Economy forum now.

    Back to OP:
    Yes, I know of 2 very extreme cases. Well 2 people in one case!
    2 friends I know, bought FOUR properties as investments.

    Another friend who was a mortgage broker with a big flashy car advised and secured thier loans. Apparentily they took 2 mortgages out, and time 2 more to be drawn down just after the first 2. That way the forms questioning all thier current finance loans etc were extremely clean and 100% honest..
    They now have 1.2 million in loans and are on interest only from what i know. Massive equity lost. I hate it all because i care deeply for one... but He no longer has that smug attitude constantly stating "I've over a million quid in property. I doubt ill notice another 20k"...when refering to a new car he was buying...
    I doubt he'll notice any money in his life now...

    Its shameful that 2 people on 35k a year could ever get thier hands on this much money...

    The disgust then came a year after the crash when the broker who set them up with all this...offered my friend his car for a great price... Hope the snobby broker took a nice release for that one..

    Well that's them two screwed for life.


  • Registered Users Posts: 436 ✭✭Spiritofthekop


    theTinker wrote: »
    This thread has derailed from the OP and would be better suited to Economy forum now.

    Back to OP:
    Yes, I know of 2 very extreme cases. Well 2 people in one case!
    2 friends I know, bought FOUR properties as investments.

    Another friend who was a mortgage broker with a big flashy car advised and secured thier loans. Apparentily they took 2 mortgages out, and time 2 more to be drawn down just after the first 2. That way the forms questioning all thier current finance loans etc were extremely clean and 100% honest..
    They now have 1.2 million in loans and are on interest only from what i know. Massive equity lost. I hate it all because i care deeply for one... but He no longer has that smug attitude constantly stating "I've over a million quid in property. I doubt ill notice another 20k"...when refering to a new car he was buying...
    I doubt he'll notice any money in his life now...

    Its shameful that 2 people on 35k a year could ever get thier hands on this much money...

    The disgust then came a year after the crash when the broker who set them up with all this...offered my friend his car for a great price... Hope the snobby broker took a nice release for that one..

    Sorry to say it....but it in all honesty it serves them right...greed is a horrible thing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 436 ✭✭Spiritofthekop


    Delancey wrote: »
    The issue of ' Moral Hazard ' must be considered in any discussion of mortgage debt forgiveness.
    Why should a family struggle and make sacrifices to pay their mortgage when their next door neighbour did not and as a reward had (say) a hundred grand wiped off their debt ?
    The nonsense spouted about a debt forgiveness scheme ignores the certainty that mortage defaults will soar if any ' scheme ' is introduced - defaults can only be handled on a case by case basis.

    I think the focus should be on reform of the Dickensian bankruptcy laws.

    Strong news/rumours coming through from the powers that be that NO debt forgiveness will be given in any cases....mortgage restructuring for some very severe cases might happen to some families by extending loan time and reducing rates to help until they get their incomes sorted out with new jobs.

    Thank GOD common sense prevails.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭lmimmfn


    Delancey wrote: »
    The issue of ' Moral Hazard ' must be considered in any discussion of mortgage debt forgiveness.
    Why should a family struggle and make sacrifices to pay their mortgage when their next door neighbour did not and as a reward had (say) a hundred grand wiped off their debt ?
    The nonsense spouted about a debt forgiveness scheme ignores the certainty that mortage defaults will soar if any ' scheme ' is introduced - defaults can only be handled on a case by case basis.

    I think the focus should be on reform of the Dickensian bankruptcy laws.
    not only that what if your neighbours gaff was worth a million in the boom times and your gaff was worth 300k? mr. million gaff has his debts wiped and still ends up liing in his plush pad and youre working like a c**t to keep things ticking over.

    My issue is WHY IS THE MEDIA ALL OVER THIS? ok, i understand it sells newspapers, but there is something not right in the over exposure that debt forgiveness is receiving from the media.

    I agree with the fact that people in negative equity should be able to move and have the difference as a mortgage on their new place, but not dropping the keys at the bank and having the taxpayer pickup the tab. Couldnt care less if they did that with Ulster Bank mortgages, but not when it affects me, especially with all the crap to come in future budgets.

    Ignoring idiots who comment "far right" because they don't even know what it means



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Strong news/rumours coming through from the powers that be that NO debt forgiveness will be given in any cases....mortgage restructuring for some very severe cases might happen to some families by extending loan time and reducing rates to help until they get their incomes sorted out with new jobs.

    Thank GOD common sense prevails.



    So what are you saying? Thank God for rumours from "the powers that be"?

    If people can't pay they can't pay. It's as simple as that.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 130 ✭✭andyjo


    I know a tacher who bought a holiday home abroad and an investment property here. She is now in difficulties. Also have a cousin in the Gardai who bought a couple of investment properties during the boom, ...he said at the time it was to suppliment his income when he retires at 50, and all his friends were at it too. Crazy stuff.


  • Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭Hector Mildew


    A friend put down a deposit on an apartment, off the plans, just before things went belly up. When he tried to pull out a few months later as it was clear that the apartments would not be built the developer kept the deposit. Sounds wrong but true.
    looky loo wrote: »
    Debt forgiveness, no, all adults, its like gambling at the casino, when you lose you dont get your money back.

    if that rule was applied fairly and across the board then things wouldn't be so bad..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    lmimmfn wrote: »
    My issue is WHY IS THE MEDIA ALL OVER THIS?

    Because the people who decide what goes in the papers or on RTE have mortgages, or their friends and relations do. Their lovely ABC1 demographic, which generates their advertising revenue, is in the same boat.

    These people are not unemployed, they are not on social welfare, they do not queue up in A&E waiting for a public bed, their kids go to fee-paying schools. They know about those issues, but they don't feel them personally.

    Negative equity hurts them personally in the wallet, so it's more important (to them). So we have to listen to them witter on about it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    So what are you saying? Thank God for rumours from "the powers that be"?

    If people can't pay they can't pay. It's as simple as that.

    Dead right. And if you can't pay for something, you can't have it. I was taught that when I was about 2.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,833 ✭✭✭✭Armin_Tamzarian


    A friend put down a deposit on an apartment, off the plans, just before things went belly up. When he tried to pull out a few months later as it was clear that the apartments would not be built the developer kept the deposit. Sounds wrong but true.

    Sounds like he dodged a bullet TBH.
    If the apartment had of been build he'd be way worse off.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    Because the people who decide what goes in the papers or on RTE have mortgages, or their friends and relations do. Their lovely ABC1 demographic, which generates their advertising revenue, is in the same boat.

    Also if the sort of debt forgiveness that certain people seem to want the media gets to have a second field day after the fact. They will get to turn around and print stories similar to the many given here.

    "Couple has 500k house bought at tax payers expense while they holiday for 3 weeks in the bahamas!"

    "Outrage as government oversees handout to allow the D4 wealthy to live the high life at our expense!"


    If there is no debt forgiveness then we'll be treated to an orgy or stories similar in tone to that recent (dubious) letter in the Irish Times

    "Dail sits in luxury while starving children forced to eat cardboard to survive!"

    "Farm, in family for generations, lost due to government intransigence. Children forced to live on street!"

    I've already read a similar story to that last one. If you actually read the entire article it turns out the poor innocent farmer had mortgaged his generational farm for a couple of million to buy apartments in the baltic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭Hector Mildew


    Sounds like he dodged a bullet TBH.
    If the apartment had of been build he'd be way worse off.

    I agree, losing €20k was better than the alternative. Sickening though as the developer broke the contract yet kept the deposit (and probably handed it back to a bank).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    jank wrote: »
    The Dow Jones Index was at 923 in 1973. In 2007 it was approching 14,000.
    Also, nice you to pick the absolute peak in when to sell, the only problem with that though is that you probably bought another property, so your worth is now -40%

    I couldn't really help the year that my mother died.

    ...and no, I didn't buy another property. As I mentioned, I used the funds to put on deposit in my existing offset mortgage so that it would be effectively interest free and paid off seven years early.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    murphaph wrote: »

    Btw, you claimed in that 2006 thread that no equity will outperform bricks and mortar but this (at least historically) has been proven incorrect..

    .....You made many references to "paying other peoples' mortgages" while renting. If your rent is less than the amount you'd pay in mortgage interest over the life of the loan then renting makes more financial sense for that period. It's simple maths. If we are to talk about security of tenure etc. then that is a different matter, but the broad statement that "rent is dead money" is factually simply incorrect.

    Murphaph,this Security-of-Tenure element is,I believe,the single greatest anti rental bogeyman that exists in the Irish phsyche.

    Deep inside our Knowledge Based heads we have an image seared like a photo-negative and it depicts an elderly couple standing outside their bothán with the Stovepipe hatted Landlord and the Peelers in attendance......

    Those poor Famine-Times people were RENTING :eek:...and just lookit what happened to THEM :eek: :eek:.....No way is that goin to happen to ME ;)

    What exercises my feeble mind is what happens to oul Gerrman,French,Italian people ?

    Are they thrown out onto the street after they retire ?

    How have several hundred years worth of Forriners managed to eke out a life for themselves without actually owning their own home,as we Irish have a RIGHT to do..?

    I'm just curious,perhaps you could knock-in to your elderly neighbours there Murphaph and enquire if they're worried about the Baliff callin round ?? ;)


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 643 ✭✭✭swordofislam


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    My uncle purchased a house in Tuscany where our family originate. I don't know the details of the purchase (whether or not he re-mortgaged the home) or how much the said house cost him but he is now doing far less business than he was during the boom.
    Porco dio!! but surely chippers are booming?

    Godge wrote: »
    This post makes so much sense. If you were a discharged bankrupt after say five years (rather than twelve) and it was automatic (rather than dependent on creditors) they would be ok in the long run.
    There is automatic recognition of bankruptcy across EU countries. Anyone who is
    • in despair
    • desperate
    • desparate
    • a young couple
    • genuine
    Or any other of the tedious litany of excuses for wanting me to pay for your fancy house can just emigrate to any EU country and get a job and wait a few months and then they can declare bankruptcy and the rules of that country will apply here.

    The country with the most debtor friendly system is England


    Negative equity hurts them personally in the wallet, so it's more important (to them). So we have to listen to them witter on about it.
    I am an ABC1 and I am in negative equity. Do you know what I plan to do? Do you?
    I am going to pay my mortgage - the mortgage is much less than I planned for.

    Negative equity is not the same as an inability to pay the mortgage.

    You boardsies will all be paying high rents to someone who is getting the cost of his investment properties written down.

    Come on lads how do you think this will work isn't it Ireland that we are living in?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Murphaph,this Security-of-Tenure element is,I believe,the single greatest anti rental bogeyman that exists in the Irish phsyche.

    Sorry to sound thick, but am I missing something here?

    25 Years of Mortage Repayments = house.
    25 Years of rent payments = nothing.

    Even in the most modest and benign of economic inflationary environments, does anybody here seriously believe that a house bought today will be worth less or equal to what it will be worth in 2036?


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Samir Tinkling Road


    what is the obsession with owning property? you pay rent for flexibility and not being tied down. you pay it and in return get a roof over your head. that's not nothing. although apparently to all the 'but i just wanted a home for my family' people, having a roof over your head really is nothing if you can't have a chance to make a profit on it too.
    you might as well say 25 years of grocery shopping = nothing instead of growing your own food or something. 25 years of bus trips = nothing instead of a car. It depends on what you want in the meantime.
    It is utterly bizarre to still see this mentality in this day and age. To want a home is one thing but to insist that renting is a total waste is :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Sorry to sound thick, but am I missing something here?

    25 Years of Mortage Repayments = house.
    25 Years of rent payments = nothing.

    Even in the most modest and benign of economic inflationary environments, does anybody here seriously believe that a house bought today will be worth less or equal to what it will be worth in 2036?

    Not Thick at all.

    I see your point,but I'm still posing the question.

    Does this mean that millions,if not billions of Forriners over the past few hundred years have perished in abject poverty and sadness because they did not own their own little place ?

    I'm not putting any great arguements for or against,I'm merely curious as to why it seems inconcievable for any Irish person to reach their 20's and not own property ?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 104 ✭✭Paddyontherun


    Sorry to sound thick, but am I missing something here?

    25 Years of Mortage Repayments = house.
    25 Years of rent payments = nothing.

    Scenario
    Bought 2006 for €700k paid repayments to date but lost job cant make repayts. Value now 350K sold house now in debt of c.€350K.

    Rented since 2006 lost job can't pay rental anymore, moving out debt = nil.

    Even in the most modest and benign of economic inflationary environments, does anybody here seriously believe that a house bought today will be worth less or equal to what it will be worth in 2036?[/QUOTE]

    It is quite possible that a house bought in 2006/2007 for 700K is now worth €350k and unlikely to go back to previous highest values by 2036


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    It is quite possible that a house bought in 2006/2007 for 700K is now worth €350k and unlikely to go back to previous highest values by 2036

    Dude.

    In all seriousness, are you arguing that Western Europe will experience continual negative economic growth year on year for the next twenty-five years?!?

    I mean, come on. Even David McWilliams would call you a pessimist.

    You seriously think that a house bought for 700K in 2006/2007 will be worth less in 2036??!


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Samir Tinkling Road


    Dude.

    In all seriousness, are you arguing that Western Europe will experience continual negative economic growth year on year for the next twenty-five years?!?

    I mean, come on. Even David McWilliams would call you a pessimist.

    You seriously think that a house bought for 700K in 2006/2007 will be worth less in 2036??!

    It doesn't have to experience negative growth for the entire 25 years to be worth the same or less after 25 years


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭earlyevening


    You seriously think that a house bought for 700K in 2006/2007 will be worth less in 2036??!

    But by 2036 you'll have paid the 700,000 plus another 1,400,000 in interest (or more possibly depending on how rates go).

    Forget 700,000, will the house be worth 2,100,000 in 2036?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    You seriously think that a house bought for 700K in 2006/2007 will be worth less in 2036??!

    Now you're beginning to realise what a real housing crash is like!

    Look at Japanese house prices in the past 25 years in real terms


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭ChRoMe


    Sorry to sound thick, but am I missing something here?

    25 Years of Mortage Repayments = house.
    25 Years of rent payments = nothing.

    Even in the most modest and benign of economic inflationary environments, does anybody here seriously believe that a house bought today will be worth less or equal to what it will be worth in 2036?

    25 years of rent does not leave you with nothing, you will have had a home for the period without any of the liability associated with owning property a very attractive proposition


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭ChRoMe


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Murphaph,this Security-of-Tenure element is,I believe,the single greatest anti rental bogeyman that exists in the Irish phsyche.

    Deep inside our Knowledge Based heads we have an image seared like a photo-negative and it depicts an elderly couple standing outside their bothán with the Stovepipe hatted Landlord and the Peelers in attendance......

    Those poor Famine-Times people were RENTING :eek:...and just lookit what happened to THEM :eek: :eek:.....No way is that goin to happen to ME ;)

    What exercises my feeble mind is what happens to oul Gerrman,French,Italian people ?

    Are they thrown out onto the street after they retire ?

    How have several hundred years worth of Forriners managed to eke out a life for themselves without actually owning their own home,as we Irish have a RIGHT to do..?

    I'm just curious,perhaps you could knock-in to your elderly neighbours there Murphaph and enquire if they're worried about the Baliff callin round ?? ;)

    Security of tenancy is a real issue for all tenant s the culture does not exist for that to be solved.pouting the crash aside, many renters don't want to be home owners, however they want to be unsecured tenants less


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭earlyevening


    Mind blowing to see any sense in those mortgages that some people have, where the they might be on interest only, but the interest only portion is higher than the rent on a similar property.

    Talk about dead money.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Sorry to sound thick, but am I missing something here?

    25 Years of Mortage Repayments = house.
    25 Years of rent payments = nothing.

    Even in the most modest and benign of economic inflationary environments, does anybody here seriously believe that a house bought today will be worth less or equal to what it will be worth in 2036?
    Oh god, we're not going to have to debunk the 'rent is dead money' meme again, are we? :(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    ChRoMe wrote: »
    25 years of rent does not leave you with nothing, you will have had a home for the period without any of the liability associated with owning property a very attractive proposition

    None of the maintenance or furnishing costs in many cases too. People who get loans for houses rarely factor in the upkeep and changing it about all the time which renters are less likely to do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Sorry to sound thick, but am I missing something here?

    25 Years of Mortage Repayments = house.
    25 Years of rent payments = nothing.

    Even in the most modest and benign of economic inflationary environments, does anybody here seriously believe that a house bought today will be worth less or equal to what it will be worth in 2036?


    I think you are missing something (or maybe you are thick)



    Diarmuid wrote: »
    Now you're beginning to realise what a real housing crash is like!

    Look at Japanese house prices in the past 25 years in real terms



    Absolutely right about Japanese house prices.

    http://www.statusireland.com/statistics/property-house-price-statistics-for-ireland/26/Japan-Urban-Land-Index.html


    Look at that index for Japanese urban land. 20 years after the bubble burst, the land is worth half what it was worth at the peak.

    2014 may be the best time to buy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 595 ✭✭✭books4sale


    bluewolf wrote: »
    what is the obsession with owning property? you pay rent for flexibility and not being tied down. you pay it and in return get a roof over your head. that's not nothing. although apparently to all the 'but i just wanted a home for my family' people, having a roof over your head really is nothing if you can't have a chance to make a profit on it too.
    you might as well say 25 years of grocery shopping = nothing instead of growing your own food or something. 25 years of bus trips = nothing instead of a car. It depends on what you want in the meantime.
    It is utterly bizarre to still see this mentality in this day and age. To want a home is one thing but to insist that renting is a total waste is :confused:

    Well said.... to add to a popular phrase.

    Rent is dead money......but at least I have my freedom!

    Another angle, you bought into the mentality, the dream, the whatever.

    How many with mortagages could truly say they're free.

    You gave it to 'da man' and now you're takin' from 'da man'.

    Shackle down the masses so to speak, you're not in control anymore, a huge weight around your neck 'a hangman's noose'....a mortgage.

    You've just been had. Let's see you start a revolution from your couch.

    Ya, didn't think so.

    Freedom.....indeed!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    I couldn't really help the year that my mother died.

    ...and no, I didn't buy another property. As I mentioned, I used the funds to put on deposit in my existing offset mortgage so that it would be effectively interest free and paid off seven years early.

    So you lost out on interest on 280k?

    That over 4 years is a loss of almost 35k at a modest 3% interest. Interest rates of 5% + was not uncommon in the good times. If it was 5% over 4 years then you are talking about $60k.

    Tell me, has your property value increased by 35k-60k since 2007?
    So you are basically holding cash in an account to offset interest payments on a depreciating asset. Losing money twice here.

    Sorry, but these are the facts. There is no such thing as a free mortgage from a bank. You should stop telling pseudo Celtic tiger economic myths. My favorite being that property prices always go up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 413 ✭✭noxqs


    DublinWriter should get a nobel price in Economics. Paul Krugman is an amateur in comparison. Stating arguments like:

    X = A
    Y = B

    Therefore, X > Y. QED.

    DublinWriter is not a philosopher or he would have spotted his almost classic textbook example of a reductio ad absurdum.

    The list of flaws in your logic, besides the core logical fallacy (lol), is so long and repeated over and over on this forum and elsewhere, that there is no point replying to this anymore. Suffice it to say, if you were the finance minister of Ireland, we would be in deeper trouble.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Dude.

    In all seriousness, are you arguing that Western Europe will experience continual negative economic growth year on year for the next twenty-five years?!?

    I mean, come on. Even David McWilliams would call you a pessimist.

    You seriously think that a house bought for 700K in 2006/2007 will be worth less in 2036??!

    350k growing @ 2% compound for 25 years is about 575k, so yes it is entirely possible!
    You having to be hitting 3% + on average every year for 25 years to be back to where you were.

    Of course this is not even accounting for interest payments.

    I think the penny is finally droping for you ;)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Godge wrote: »
    I think you are missing something (or maybe you are thick)








    Absolutely right about Japanese house prices.

    http://www.statusireland.com/statistics/property-house-price-statistics-for-ireland/26/Japan-Urban-Land-Index.html


    Look at that index for Japanese urban land. 20 years after the bubble burst, the land is worth half what it was worth at the peak.

    2014 may be the best time to buy.

    Have a look at Germany too, Negative house prices for the last 10 years.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement