House repossession rates are far too low

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:18AM

Three Seasons wrote: »

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

Maybe in your proposed shanty town.

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 02:19AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

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.

So who did they share this information with? Did they become a whistle blower?

Smidge · 15-03-2013 02:19AM

Three Seasons wrote: »

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.

Quite clearly this is not the case.
As JRant said in his post above this one you made to me, that when the bank resells the home it gets money back on the property and I am STILL on the hook for the remaining balance.

The bank gets made whole, they are not held accountable and they do not suffer any loss.

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 02:19AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

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.

And look at the share prices, their stupid business decisions were punished severely.

I get harasses by charities and companies all the time to donate or buy something. The solution is very simple.

Say no.

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 02:20AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

...........

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.
........................

Holland also had the same availability of lax credit and the same type of houses never reached the prices they did here. How do you explain that?

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:21AM

Boombastic wrote: »

So who did they share this information with? Did they become a whistle blower?

They did nothing.

Smidge · 15-03-2013 02:21AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Maybe in your proposed shanty town.

Dont you mean "Ghettosville"???

Should give it a nice catchy address like..

"St Attracta's shanties for the financially hoodwinked"

Grayson · 15-03-2013 02:22AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

So, the banks bear the responsibility for the state the banks are in.
But people bear responsibility for the state their finances are in.

And yes, banks helped the bubble. But so did every buyer who bought property that was over valued. The banks enabled buyers. And the government through regulation enabled the banks & buyers.

But each was a separate crime/mistake.

Just as the government would be wrong to allow anyone to just pick up a handgun. And a gun seller would be morally culpable in selling a handgun to someone who shouldn't have one. And The person shouldn't pull the trigger and kill someone. Each is responsible for their part. But the actions of one of them doesn't absolve any of the others of any of the blame they (the other two) hold.

Edited for spelling

Grayson · 15-03-2013 02:23AM

Smidge wrote: »

Quite clearly this is not the case.
As JRant said in his post above this one you made to me, that when the bank resells the home it gets money back on the property and I am STILL on the hook for the remaining balance.

The bank gets made whole, they are not held accountable and they do not suffer any loss.

They are if you're declared bankrupt.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:24AM

They were told by their bosses the bankers you are so fond of to sell and give out loans without proper and due care. In case you haven't heard the Irish banking industry has been referred to as the Wild West by international commentators.

Three Seasons wrote: »

And look at the share prices, their stupid business decisions were punished severely.

I get harasses by charities and companies all the time to donate or buy something. The solution is very simple.

Say no.

JRant · 15-03-2013 02:25AM

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????

It was more expensive to rent but renting didn't come with a 30 year debt attached to it. If i couldn't afford rent in one place i could just find somewhere within budget elsewhere.
I couldn't, for the life of me, understand how paying €400k for a modest 2/3 bed house made any sense at all.

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 02:26AM

Smidge wrote: »

Dont you mean "Ghettosville"???

Should give it a nice catchy address like..

"St Attracta's shanties for the financially hoodwinked"

Is that in D4?

Just on your previous point about people doing the same as their parents

Most people of that generation moved in to unfurnished houses and furnished it bit, by bit. Some even with second hand furniture :eek: or saved until the had the money to buy things for it. Some people took in lodgers or let a room to a college student as 'digs' , not much of that goes on now. Also they didn't holiday as often or had new cars every year.

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 02:28AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

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.

If banks break laws they should be punished by the legal system. If they breach terms of conditions of a mortgage contract it should be cancelled or whatever is deemed appropriate under law.

A housing bubble was created, there is no law against bubbles, numerous factors caused it, amongst them were cheap credit, ignorant house buyers and an ignorant government. The government suffered the consequences in the last election. The banks suffered the consequences as the owners lost billions upon billions. The house buyers suffered through negative equity and poor economic conditions.

All three main parties which caused the bubble suffered the consequences.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:29AM

Certainly the Irish people have an immature relationship with money And unhealthy relationship with owning property. Most here will agree some lost the run of themselves with easy credit. But it is shocking that some feel the banks are absolutely clean in all of this and shouldn't take a hit on their investment.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:32AM

Irish Banks = Wild West.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ifsc-banks-circle-their-wagons-as-elderfield-tries-to-tame-wild-west-26892393.html

Smidge · 15-03-2013 02:34AM

Boombastic wrote: »

Is that in D4?

Just on your previous point about people doing the same as their parents

Most people of that generation moved in to unfurnished houses and furnished it bit, by bit. Some even with second hand furniture :eek: or saved until the had the money to buy things for it. Some people took in lodgers or let a room to a college student as 'digs' , not much of that goes on now. Also they didn't holiday as often or had new cars every year.

And on that point I moved into an unfurnished(it didn't even have a kitchen or bathroom, I HAVE a second hand kitchen) house that is still not finished(ie tiles in the bathroom etc)10 years ago.

I have had lodgers, Spanish students(fupping nightmare would never do that again, caused more damage than would have paid for bathroom tiles:mad:).
The last holiday I had was my honeymoon 15 years ago.

And we have one car, a 1.2 banger that is held together at this stage with hope, fear and a mechanic who is happy to barter with us for its upkeep, that is 14 years old and was NOT even new when we bought it:eek::mad:

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 02:35AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Certainly the Irish people have an immature relationship with money And unhealthy relationship with owning property. Most here will agree some lost the run of themselves with easy credit. But it is shocking that some feel the banks are absolutely clean in all of this and shouldn't take a hit on their investment.

It's undoubtable they will be taking a hit on their mortgage book, as some people simply can't pay. And that is their own fault for bad lending decisions.

The owners of these banks took massive hits. Irish Life and Permanent shares for example were worth €23 at peak and are now effectively worthless. The owners lost it all.

JRant · 15-03-2013 02:41AM

Smidge wrote: »

And on that point I moved into an unfurnished(it didn't even have a kitchen or bathroom, I HAVE a second hand kitchen) house that is still not finished(ie tiles in the bathroom etc)10 years ago.

I have had lodgers, Spanish students(fupping nightmare would never do that again, caused more damage than would have paid for bathroom tiles:mad:).
The last holiday I had was my honeymoon 15 years ago.

And we have one car, a 1.2 banger that is held together at this stage with hope, fear and a mechanic who is happy to barter with us for its upkeep, that is 14 years old and was NOT even new when we bought it:eek::mad:

There's loads of good solid people like yourself out there doing what needs to be done to meet commitments. But there needs to be a realisation that some people have gotten to the stage with their mortgage that foreclosure is the only option left and to be honest would probably be better for them health wise in the long run.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 02:41AM

JRant wrote: »

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.

Here is a detailed article, from one of the most prominent economic criminologists and experts in fraud around, of the case of Ireland:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2011/06/control-fraud-and-irish-banking-crisis.html

This, and the examples from people such as Jonathan Sugarman, who tried to blow the whistle on potential illegal actions at Unicredit, but was (and still is being) suppressed from doing so, give a pretty clear indication of fraud in the run up to the crisis.

Here, you are (like others, again), trying to absolve banks of their responsibility for this crisis, and the immoral/illegal and in cases fraudulent actions of these banks, and are arguing for lumping their responsibility onto indebted homeowners, implying that they should have been prescient, should have somehow known that the crisis was coming, even when the vast majority of economists (bar a small minority), had no idea it was coming.

If even economists of all people, had no idea, then how on earth can you expect homeowners to know? If anything, the banks were far better positioned, to intimately know the unsustainable nature of their lending and the property bubble.

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 02:41AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Irish Banks = Wild West.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ifsc-banks-circle-their-wagons-as-elderfield-tries-to-tame-wild-west-26892393.html

Did you even read the article, or just the headline??

Smidge wrote: »

And on that point I moved into an unfurnished(it didn't even have a kitchen or bathroom, I HAVE a second hand kitchen) house that is still not finished(ie tiles in the bathroom etc)10 years ago.

I have had lodgers, Spanish students(fupping nightmare would never do that again, caused more damage than would have paid for bathroom tiles:mad:).
The last holiday I had was my honeymoon 15 years ago.

And we have one car, a 1.2 banger that is held together at this stage with hope, fear and a mechanic who is happy to barter with us for its upkeep, that is 14 years old and was NOT even new when we bought it:eek::mad:

Fair play, so you should have no trouble meeting your mortgage payments. Now compare your situation to someone who borrowed to buy a 3 bedroom fully furnished house and is sitting there with 2 empty rooms complaining they can't meet their mortgage payments.

Smidge · 15-03-2013 02:49AM

Boombastic wrote: »

Did you even read the article, or just the headline??

Fair play, so you should have no trouble meeting your mortgage payments

Believe me, I have EVERY trouble paying my mortgage.
Every god damn thing has gone up, ESB. phone, petrol, bins, food, school costs, oil, internet, clothing, doctors, medication, car insurance, car tax, house insurance, life insurance, I could go on but I'm sure you get the drift.

Every god damn thing has gone up.....except our income which has been decimated.

But I guess we had a hand in those things the same we had a choice in homing our family!!

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 02:52AM

Grayson wrote: »

So, the banks bear the responsibility for the state the banks are in.
But people bear responsibility for the state their finances are in.

And yes, banks helped the bubble. But so did every buyer who bought property that was over valued. The banks enabled buyers. And the government through regulation enabled the banks & buyers.

But each was a separate crime/mistake.

Just as the government would be wrong to allow anyone to just pick up a handgun. And a gun seller would be morally culpable in selling a handgun to someone who shouldn't have one. And The person shouldn't pull the trigger and kill someone. Each is responsible for their part. But the actions of one of them doesn't absolve any of the others of any of the blame they (the other two) hold.

Edited for spelling

None of that was a separate crime or mistake. People are in greater debt due to the crimes and immoral actions committed in banks! (and are unable to meet repayments for the same reasons)

You can't just brush that under the carpet, say "they signed the contract", and that's suddenly all ok; they didn't sign a contract to absolve the banks of their responsibilities, and to take on the banks portion of responsibility.

It's nonsense to suggest any of that should be treated as an isolated problem, when the whole lot as part of the crisis, is intimately interconnected.

JRant · 15-03-2013 02:53AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Here is a detailed article, from one of the most prominent economic criminologists and experts in fraud around, of the case of Ireland:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2011/06/control-fraud-and-irish-banking-crisis.html

This, and the examples from people such as Jonathan Sugarman, who tried to blow the whistle on potential illegal actions at Unicredit, but was (and still is being) suppressed from doing so, give a pretty clear indication of fraud in the run up to the crisis.

Here, you are (like others, again), trying to absolve banks of their responsibility for this crisis, and the immoral/illegal and in cases fraudulent actions of these banks, and are arguing for lumping their responsibility onto indebted homeowners, implying that they should have been prescient, should have somehow known that the crisis was coming, even when the vast majority of economists (bar a small minority), had no idea it was coming.

If even economists of all people, had no idea, then how on earth can you expect homeowners to know? If anything, the banks were far better positioned, to intimately know the unsustainable nature of their lending and the property bubble.

Point me to where I said the banks are blameless please.

A couple of articles doesn't consistitute evidence of wholesale fraud. Show me where all these defrauded homeowners are bringing their cases to the courts.

I never suggested people should have seen the crisis coming. I said the properties were never worth the kind of monopoly figures they were going for, two completely different things.

Ah yes, the old economists never seen it coming line. If engineers were wrong as often as economists would you get in an aeroplane?

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 03:03AM

JRant wrote: »

Point me to where I said the banks are blameless please.

A couple of articles doesn't consistitute evidence of wholesale fraud. Show me where all these defrauded homeowners are bringing their cases to the courts.

I never suggested people should have seen the crisis coming. I said the properties were never worth the kind of monopoly figures they were going for, two completely different things.

Ah yes, the old economists never seen it coming line. If engineers were wrong as often as economists would you get in an aeroplane?

You say it here

JRant wrote:

Yes, there was some awful oversight of the banking sector but ultimately the responsablity lies with the individual.

That is putting the banks share of responsibility onto the individual debtors as well, thus absolving the banks of that share of responsibility.

It doesn't matter if the bank or its owners took a hit or loss; that doesn't justify debtors taking a greater hit, just because the banks took some hit already.

You have one of the foremost experts on fraud there stating the case that fraud was the driver of the economic crisis in Ireland, and a whistleblower from a bank in Ireland, pointing out fraud; two people who have a far more direct and detailed knowledge than you on the matter.

JRant · 15-03-2013 03:22AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

You say it here

That is putting the banks share of responsibility onto the individual debtors as well, thus absolving the banks of that share of responsibility.

It doesn't matter if the bank or its owners took a hit or loss; that doesn't justify debtors taking a greater hit, just because the banks took some hit already.

You have one of the foremost experts on fraud there stating the case that fraud was the driver of the economic crisis in Ireland, and a whistleblower from a bank in Ireland, pointing out fraud; two people who have a far more direct and detailed knowledge than you on the matter.

Addressing your second point first, if I may. What they say may well be true, it may not be, but the only thing that matters is whether homeowners are the victim of fraud as you state and to date we've seen nothing to suggest that this is the case. Remembering of course that it's the courts job to rule on such matters.

Regarding your first point, if that's what you took from what i stated then there's not much more I can do to make myself clearer. Each individual who signed for a mortgage is ultimately responsable for their own actions.
Did they get a solicitor to check the fine print?
Did they consult an accountant to assess their finances?
Did they check long term rental rates in the area to see if the valuation matched its real value?
All these things lie in the signees remit.
To blindly say it's all the banks fault does nothing to move the discussion on and only attempts to absolve the mortgage holder of any responsablity.

IM0 · 15-03-2013 08:44AM

agreed OP agreed, for reasons that have been bourne out by a discusting % of people in this thread.

you signed the contract you take the hit. anyone who signed a 100% mortgage for a house is retarded, and anyone who signed a mortgage of 110% is beyond retarded.[I know some of these people]

the MOST anyone should get for a mortgage is 90% maybe even 80%?
so anyone who went for a 100%+ mortgage should take the pain of their ill informed and naive decisions. that I know is INCREDIBLY harsh, and a number of grannies have just literally died from reading it, but this is the harsh reality of life, you make your own bed you lay in it

when people decided on the cost of house they should buy they should have factored in the possibilty of increases in mortgages which were sure to come and reduction in wages, not because of they should have seen the future but because thats sensible practice when saying that you are going to pay back 100's of thousands of euros you really need to hedge your bets so you can survive any dips in wages [recession] which is sure to come and rise in interest rates, again due to recession.

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 08:46AM

Banks haven't been absolved if responsibility. Shareholders lost massive fortunes as a result of the crisis.

Buyers aren't supposed to know what happens in the future, but the risk lies with them.

Why should others take on the risk when they didn't sign the contract.

Do you think I can go into paddy power and ask for my money back as " there was no way I could predict the future".

That would be my tough luck.

When you sign a contract to pay a series of payments back you are expected to do so. It doesn't matter about what events take place in the future. You signed the fukcing contract. How can't people understand this. You aren't entitled to a risk free life. If you didn't want to be subject to unforeseen events then don't sign the fukcing contract.

Why should the contract be cancelled when the bank didn't do anything to break the contract. The bank didn't promise anyone they would make good business decisions. It shouldn't be even relevant to mortgage holders what the quality of a banks business decisions are, that's for the shareholders to worry about as try are the ones who own the banks.

galwayrush · 15-03-2013 09:05AM

Yeah, people signed the fukcing contract , how silly of them to lose their jobs, suffer ill health, maybe even died. They should have known better. :rolleyes:

IM0 · 15-03-2013 09:09AM

galwayrush wrote: »

Yeah, people signed the fukcing contract , how silly of them to lose their jobs, suffer ill health, maybe even died. They should have known better. :rolleyes:

that what insurance is for

Seaneh · 15-03-2013 09:10AM

Three Seasons wrote: »

Banks haven't been absolved if responsibility. Shareholders lost massive fortunes as a result of the crisis.

Buyers aren't supposed to know what happens in the future, but the risk lies with them.

Why should others take on the risk when they didn't sign the contract.

Do you think I can go into paddy power and ask for my money back as " there was no way I could predict the future".

That would be my tough luck.

When you sign a contract to pay a series of payments back you are expected to do so. It doesn't matter about what events take place in the future. You signed the fukcing contract. How can't people understand this. You aren't entitled to a risk free life. If you didn't want to be subject to unforeseen events then don't sign the fukcing contract.

Why should the contract be cancelled when the bank didn't do anything to break the contract. The bank didn't promise anyone they would make good business decisions. It shouldn't be even relevant to mortgage holders what the quality of a banks business decisions are, that's for the shareholders to worry about as try are the ones who own the banks.

Not one person in this thread has said people in arrears should have their loans written off.

What people in this thread. The IMF, leading economists and anyone with a half functioning brain has said is that people who are in arrears should be engaged by the banks with a view to restructuring their loans so that their repayments are more realistic and they can meet them. That way the bank still get their money back, homeowners keep their homes, the government isn't exposed to the added hundreds of thousands (and yes, it would be hundreds of thousands, over 15% of home owners are in arrears pressently) of defaulted mortgages and wouldn't have to further borrow to once again recapitalise the banks who ****ed it all up in the first place.

The people who are most vocal about things like repossessing distressed properties are usually either people with a vested interest in acquiring said properties or people who haven't a ****ing notion what they are ****ing on about.

State owned banks repossessing homes and taking on the burden of defaulted mortgages which the state will have to pay for, possibly twice if the home-owners then need social housing or rent allowance, is the ****ing last think this countries economy needs. We are just getting to a stage where we can start borrowing from international markets for state financing shortfalls, ****ing that up and forcing ourselves to have to go back to the IMF and EU and borrow at their ****ing insane rates again would benefit nobody but the gob****es baying for blood and cheap properties and the IMF/EU who'd be further bleeding the country dry.

House repossession rates are far too low

Comments