House repossession rates are far too low

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 01:48AM

Grayson wrote: »

It doesn't matter.

I think Bertie should be behind bars. The whole board of Anglo should be there too. And loads of others. But they didn't commit fraud in enabling people to get mortgages in the boom. They were incompetent, but that's it. And unfortunately it's not like we can jail them for malpractice.

And buyers caused the over-inflating of the housing market. The banks just enabled them.

Remember the days when people queued overnight to get the houses in Cavan or some place because they were only 30 mins from Dublin city centre? :pac:

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 01:50AM

Grayson wrote: »

It doesn't matter.

I think Bertie should be behind bars. The whole board of Anglo should be there too. And loads of others. But they didn't commit fraud in enabling people to get mortgages in the boom. They were incompetent, but that's it. And unfortunately it's not like we can jail them for malpractice.

There was fraud all through the run up to the crisis, and breaching of lending criteria, among other laws/regulations; that's clearly not just incompetence.

Grayson wrote: »

And buyers caused the over-inflating of the housing market. The banks just enabled them.

The banks are directly responsible for managing their lending criteria and not putting out excessive, risky loans; they pumped out as much credit as they could to inflate the bubble, with examples in the thread here even, of constantly being offered stupidly excessive credit on a whim.

Absolutely the banks share significant responsibility here; they weren't merely bystanders, they encouraged and pumped up the bubble as much as they could.

JRant · 15-03-2013 01:50AM

Smidge wrote: »

""""Lets start with the first point:

Suppose you borrowed 300k to buy a house that is now worth 150k, and you cannot meet the repayments.

If the bank reposesses your home, then let us suppose that you lose your home & are freed of your debt.
The bank loses an asset worth 300k (the loan) and instead has an asset now of 150k."""

Imo Foxt, I don't there is a chance in hell of the bank "forgiving" the 300k debt.
So, in essence, the homeowner will be homeless and still owe the 300k to the bank.
But the great part of that is that the bank can then go on(using your figures here:))to sell said property for 150k

So all told(and in most basic terms)the bank gets 450k for that house.

(for some reason my post quote didn't work,Foxt.
First part quoted is yours!

If the house is sold for 150 then this is subtracted from any outstanding monies due. So the loan would be reduced from 300 to 150, meaning the bank is still due 150. Not sure how you came up with the bank making 450 on the property, your not Berties accountant by any chance?

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 01:56AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes it is banks responsibility! It is their responsibility to ensure proper credit checks on people taking out loans (which they were not doing, as loans were being issued to totally unsuitable people, against regulations/laws), and to properly assess the risk of their own assets (including debt assets), and to stay within reserve criteria (which many banks breached and failed to report, again breaching regulations/laws); much of this was outright fraudulent as well.
Banks bear huge responsibility here, and government also for failing to properly police the banks, to make sure they were following the law/regulations.

You're also saying its ok for the banks to overinflate a property bubble, which was clearly unsustainable, and thus cause an economic crisis, and that all that is justified because they are only obligated to provide short-term profits; that's utter nonsense.

Oh right, so it's homeowners responsibility to fix the banks mess as well, so they can get jobs again, to return to repaying their overinflated debts to the banks?

Come off it, you're using every argument possible here to totally absolve the banks of blame; you don't work in finance by any chance?

This is ridiculous. Homeowners signed up to overinflated debt. It's their own fault for having overinflated debt.

Why should the banks write off debt for their mortgage holders?

The mortgage holders signed a contract to pay back the debt with interest. No where in these contracts that I'm aware of is there a clause outlining scenarios where the debt must be written off.

It is not the responsibility of the banks to look after the economy. It is their responsibility to maximise profit for shareholders and to abide by relevant legislation. If they don't make profits they suffer the consequences fixated by the shareholders. If they break the law they should suffer the consequences in court.

It's quite arbitrary and random that bad business decisions should result in a write down if debt for mortgage holders. Why? That makes no sense.

If the law is broken unrelated to the mortgage contract conditions why should mortgage holders have debt written off. Again that's bizarrely random.

The banks should suffer consequences of bad decisions, but having to write off debt is nearly as random as having to deposit money in my account. It makes no sense.

It is not the banks responsibility to look after the economy and provide you with a job.

They ask if you would like to sign up to a contract and you consider if it's a good idea knowing full well you don't know future circumstances.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 01:57AM

It's quite unbelievable that some on here have forgotten that the banks are directly responsible for billions of euros which have now been put on the shoulders of tax payers LOL. I'm out of here. Lunacy.

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 01:58AM

Smidge wrote: »

So what you are saying is that if the bank repo's a 300k house and sells it on to a new owner for 150k the bank is going to "offset" that 150k off MY bad debt?

How very kind of them:rolleyes:

If I signed a contract with you to to accept a 300k loan and pay it back how would you feel if Inonly gave you 150k back?

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 02:00AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

There was fraud all through the run up to the crisis, and breaching of lending criteria, among other laws/regulations; that's clearly not just incompetence.

The banks are directly responsible for managing their lending criteria and not putting out excessive, risky loans; they pumped out as much credit as they could to inflate the bubble, with examples in the thread here even, of constantly being offered stupidly excessive credit on a whim.

Absolutely the banks share significant responsibility here; they weren't merely bystanders, they encouraged and pumped up the bubble as much as they could.

What is the banks responsibility exactly?

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 02:01AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

It's quite unbelievable that some on here have forgotten that the banks are directly responsible for billions of euros which have now been put on the shoulders of tax payers LOL. I'm out of here. Lunacy.

Yes they are responsible for that. What has that got to do with an individual signing a contract with them?

If I borrowed to buy a car, that I can't now afford, should this also be written off now?

How about my credit card bill? or the loan I took for my holiday?

Sure lets write everyone's loans off. Yeah!!

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:02AM

Did you not read the quote LOL. He spelt it out in simple English

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 02:03AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

It's quite unbelievable that some on here have forgotten that the banks are directly responsible for billions of euros which have now been put on the shoulders of tax payers LOL. I'm out of here. Lunacy.

That was the government's fault. They socialised their losses. It is not a crime to make a loss.

JRant · 15-03-2013 02:04AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

There was fraud all through the run up to the crisis, and breaching of lending criteria, among other laws/regulations; that's clearly not just incompetence.

The banks are directly responsible for managing their lending criteria and not putting out excessive, risky loans; they pumped out as much credit as they could to inflate the bubble, with examples in the thread here even, of constantly being offered stupidly excessive credit on a whim.

Absolutely the banks share significant responsibility here; they weren't merely bystanders, they encouraged and pumped up the bubble as much as they could.

Just because you think it was fraud doesn't mean that is really was. If what you are saying were true then there would be countless people bringing their banks to court as a result. We aren't and will not see this because it never happened.
Yes, there was some awful oversight of the banking sector but ultimately the responsablity lies with the individual. The warning signs were there from the begining for all to see and to plead ignorance as some sort of get out of jail free card is wrong.

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 02:04AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Did you not read the quote LOL. He spelt it out in simple English

There's a 130 posts at the moment in this thread, to which quote do you refer? It's the banks fault I don't know which one :mad:

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 02:04AM

My hairline is receding, I blame the banks.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:04AM

I'm not saying it should happen I'm saying its going to happen. It's inevitable. There is going to be a huge right down of debt whether you like it or not. For god sake the national debt will never be paid off it will be spread out over generations and credit extended etc.

Boombastic wrote: »

Yes they are responsible for that. What has that got to do with an individual signing a contract with them?

If I borrowed to buy a car, that I can't now afford, should this also be written off now?

How about my credit card bill? or the loan I took for my holiday?

Sure lets write everyone's loans off. Yeah!!

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 02:06AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm not saying it should happen I'm saying its going to happen. It's inevitable. There is going to be a huge right down of debt whether you like it or not. For god sake the national debt will never be paid off it will be spread out over generations and credit extended etc.

Ok, if they're going to get their loans wrote off, I want the price of a house given to me by the bank too.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:06AM

Boombastic wrote: »

There's a 130 posts at the moment in this thread, to which quote do you refer? It's the banks fault I don't know which one :mad:

That was not in reference to your post which was posted just before I had a chance to. It was in reference to two seasons post.

Smidge · 15-03-2013 02:07AM

Boombastic wrote: »

Firstly people should not have taken out 100% mortgages. Why hadn't they some of the money saved? Say 50,000. Otherwise you are just punishing the people who did save.

What do they say 2.5 times your salary for a mortgage, isn't it? So if a person borrowed 250,000, they must have had an income of 100,000 (if they were anyway smart and did their research). But we know people borrowed 4 and 5 times their wages and more. :rolleyes:

250,000 borrowed to buy 300,000 house
House is now worth 150,000 - this only matters if you're selling it now. If back gets it back and sells it for 150,000, there is 100,000 of a difference to be paid back.

Bank gets back what the lent, person pays back what they borrowed.

People COULD NOT have borrowed that if..... the banks did NOT LOAN IT TO THEM.

The banks knew the persons income and should have said "Sorry buddy, we can't lend you that type of money"

But wait, there were NO houses 2.5 times the average workers wage during the THIRTEEN years of the Celtic Tiger.
So, when it comes down to the brass tacks of it, if the banks had not been in cohoots with the property developers they would have not loaned that type of money to someone who clearly was way over their head.

You now, people in Ireland DID buy homes before the Celtic tiger.

Many, many people "came of age" in which it was NORMAL to buy your own family home during the 13 years of the so-called boom, I mean it wasn't like a two year buying frenzy that transpired but a very long period of time.

So what was so different between the generation who found themselves married, with children during the Celtic Tiger and their parents who had bought their own family home when they got married?

Nothing except for the corruption and greed that went on between developers, politicans and banks.
And they have no culpability in this, just the person who took the mortgage?
No-one could be gullible enough to believe that.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:08AM

Boombastic wrote: »

Ok, if they're going to get their loans wrote off, I want the price of a house given to me by the bank too.

Won't happen I'm afraid. Houses will be reposed and money written off. It will of course be all hush hush with non-disclosures signed. So the true figures may never be released.

JRant · 15-03-2013 02:09AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

It's quite unbelievable that some on here have forgotten that the banks are directly responsible for billions of euros which have now been put on the shoulders of tax payers LOL. I'm out of here. Lunacy.

I think that ignomy falls squarely on the late Brian Lenihan's shoulders.

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 02:10AM

Smidge wrote: »

People COULD NOT have borrowed that if..... the banks did NOT LOAN IT TO THEM.

...........

And the bank couldn't have lent it to them if the people didn't accept it. No banker turned up at my door with a shotgun and a bag of cash, forcing me to take it. They offered money, but I said, that's insane, no thanks.

What could they have done? They could have rented:eek:

Smidge · 15-03-2013 02:10AM

JRant wrote: »

If the house is sold for 150 then this is subtracted from any outstanding monies due. So the loan would be reduced from 300 to 150, meaning the bank is still due 150. Not sure how you came up with the bank making 450 on the property, your not Berties accountant by any chance?

I wish I was Berties accountant!
I could have "third handsies" on the people of Ireland's money;)

Also, isn't that great.
The bank walks away with clean hands.

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 02:12AM

Smidge wrote: »

People COULD NOT have borrowed that if..... the banks did NOT LOAN IT TO THEM.

The banks knew the persons income and should have said "Sorry buddy, we can't lend you that type of money"

But wait, there were NO houses 2.5 times the average workers wage during the THIRTEEN years of the Celtic Tiger.
So, when it comes down to the brass tacks of it, if the banks had not been in cohoots with the property developers they would have not loaned that type of money to someone who clearly was way over their head.

You now, people in Ireland DID buy homes before the Celtic tiger.

Many, many people "came of age" in which it was NORMAL to buy your own family home during the 13 years of the so-called boom, I mean it wasn't like a two year buying frenzy that transpired but a very long period of time.

So what was so different between the generation who found themselves married, with children during the Celtic Tiger and their parents who had bought their own family home when they got married?

Nothing except for the corruption and greed that went on between developers, politicans and banks.
And they have no culpability in this, just the person who took the mortgage?
No-one could be gullible enough to believe that.

You are missing a crucial point.

If a bank gives out bad loans it is their profitability which suffers. So they are held accountable

If I accept a huge loan and can't pay it back Insufferthe consequences set out in the contract.

FISMA · 15-03-2013 02:12AM

minidazzler wrote: »

It would force sales at lower prices and so it would move the economy along, as the demand will rise to meet supply if houses are cheap enough..... though I'm not an economist either :pac:

Or, it would cause the price of homes to fall even further, putting more people with mortgages underwater and cause lending to tighten even further.

Those waiting on the sidelines to buy would continue to wait until they see a plateau or slight rebound - don't try to catch a falling knife.

Smidge · 15-03-2013 02:13AM

Boombastic wrote: »

And the bank couldn't have lent it to them if the people didn't accept it.

What could they have done? They could have rented:eek:

You clearly were not in the rental market during that period.
It was more expensive to rent than it was to buy.
But this must have also been the fault of the person looking for a home and not the developer/property landlord?

Convenient or what?

Obviously, I mean for the property owners, who maybe forayed into perhaps...developing and speculating????

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 02:14AM

Smidge wrote: »

I wish I was Berties accountant!
I could have "third handsies" on the people of Ireland's money;)

Also, isn't that great.
The bank walks away with clean hands.

They don't really, have you seen the share prices, as a result of bad business decisions shareholders have lost billions.

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 02:15AM

Smidge wrote: »

You clearly were not in the rental market during that period.
It was more expensive to rent than it was to buy.
But this must have also been the fault of the person looking for a home and not the developer/property landlord?

I was but I suppose rent was dead money? At least it didn't leave me with a 300,000 hangover

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 02:16AM

Smidge wrote: »

You clearly were not in the rental market during that period.
It was more expensive to rent than it was to buy.
But this must have also been the fault of the person looking for a home and not the developer/property landlord?

Convenient or what?

Obviously, I mean for the property owners, who maybe forayed into perhaps...developing and speculating????

In sure there were houses somewhere people could afford to rent.

JRant · 15-03-2013 02:16AM

Smidge wrote: »

I wish I was Berties accountant!
I could have "third handsies" on the people of Ireland's money;)

Also, isn't that great.
The bank walks away with clean hands.

I can't see how they would to be honest. They'll take a hit, as will the person who loses the house. It's most definitely a case of SNAFU.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:16AM

Boombastic wrote: »

And the bank couldn't have lent it to them if the people didn't accept it. No banker turned up at my door with a shotgun and a bag of cash, forcing me to take it. They offered money, but I said, that's insane, no thanks.

What could they have done? They could have rented:eek:

I know of an assistant bank manager who resigned because they were pressurised into giving out mortgages to people they knew could not afford to pay if interest rates increased and who were harassing pensioners into buying products which they should never have been offered.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 02:17AM

Three Seasons wrote: »

This is ridiculous. Homeowners signed up to overinflated debt. It's their own fault for having overinflated debt.

This view requires quite deliberately ignoring the role of banks and of government in leading to the lax lending that caused the overinflated house prices.

It's well established, that house prices are directly correlated with the availability of credit, and once you loosen lending criteria the price of houses will shoot up as people compete to buy them with more debt; this is not a choice anyone engages in, it is a natural result of lax lending.

To put the blame for that entirely upon homeowners, is like (to repurpose the flawed gun analogy) government ending prohibition on ownership of guns, and then blaming the subsequent increase in deaths from guns solely on society, with them bearing no blame for improper regulation.

Three Seasons wrote: »

Why should the banks write off debt for their mortgage holders?

The mortgage holders signed a contract to pay back the debt with interest. No where in these contracts that I'm aware of is there a clause outlining scenarios where the debt must be written off.

It is not the responsibility of the banks to look after the economy. It is their responsibility to maximise profit for shareholders and to abide by relevant legislation. If they don't make profits they suffer the consequences fixated by the shareholders. If they break the law they should suffer the consequences in court.

It's quite arbitrary and random that bad business decisions should result in a write down if debt for mortgage holders. Why? That makes no sense.

If the law is broken unrelated to the mortgage contract conditions why should mortgage holders have debt written off. Again that's bizarrely random.

The banks should suffer consequences of bad decisions, but having to write off debt is nearly as random as having to deposit money in my account. It makes no sense.

It is not the banks responsibility to look after the economy and provide you with a job.

They ask if you would like to sign up to a contract and you consider if it's a good idea knowing full well you don't know future circumstances.

Alright this has been going in circles for a while now, so will leave it at this post with you.

Here still, you totally deny any responsibility on the part of banks for both the size of and inability to pay the debt, which is completely ridiculous seeing as they are one of the primary causes of the entire crisis.

You don't care at all that the banks undertook immoral and often illegal/fraudulent actions, which directly affected the conditions (particularly the amount of debt) on 'the contract', and which also directly affected peoples ability to repay that overinflated debt as well.

In this case, you are interested only in the letter of the law applied to debtors, and not to creditors, and the spirit of the law or what is morally right applied to neither, and use that as a means of justifying the creditors screwing over debtors twice-over.

House repossession rates are far too low

Comments