House repossession rates are far too low

galwayrush · 15-03-2013 09:10AM

IM0 wrote: »

that what insurance is for

Which probably lapsed when they could no longer afford it.

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 09:14AM

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:

It's simple if they can't make the payments the banks are entitled to repossess the house. That's what they agreed to, how can they complain.

It's not necessarily sill of them to lose their jobs, it's silly to think there was no chance they could lose their jobs or to not expect the terms if the contract to apply.

If you lend me 500k and I sign a contract agreeing to pay you back I suppose you wouldn't mind if I didn't pay you back as I lost my job. You'd be perfectly fine with that and would tell me "don't worry about it, you can keep the collateral even though it states in the contract I'm now entitled to it".

When people make gambles and take on risk they have to suffer the consequences. A mortgage is a gamble, simple as that. You don't know what your future income will be.

Do some people actually think they are just entitled to a house even if they can't pay for it.

IM0 · 15-03-2013 09:18AM

Seaneh wrote: »

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.

and people who have these ideas in this thread are either the people the OP is talking about or have as little of an understanding of economics as you seem to be accusing others of having, about having no clue what they are talking about or having vested interests!

touche sir touche!

IM0 · 15-03-2013 09:21AM

galwayrush wrote: »

Which probably lapsed when they could no longer afford it.

cause the price of their mortgage they could never truely afford went up

IM0 · 15-03-2013 09:24AM

Three Seasons wrote: »

It's simple if they can't make the payments the banks are entitled to repossess the house. That's what they agreed to, how can they complain.

It's not necessarily sill of them to lose their jobs, it's silly to think there was no chance they could lose their jobs or to not expect the terms if the contract to apply.

If you lend me 500k and I sign a contract agreeing to pay you back I suppose you wouldn't mind if I didn't pay you back as I lost my job. You'd be perfectly fine with that and would tell me "don't worry about it, you can keep the collateral even though it states in the contract I'm now entitled to it".

When people make gambles and take on risk they have to suffer the consequences. A mortgage is a gamble, simple as that. You don't know what your future income will be.

Do some people actually think they are just entitled to a house even if they can't pay for it.

the answer to that one is rediculously obvious now isnt it

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 09:25AM

Seaneh wrote: »

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.

There are plenty if people who think debt should be just written off and think its a disgrace a bank can repossess a house.

What is financially best for the banks to do is the banks and governments decision ( since the government essentially own them at least in part).

That is irrelevant to a mortgage holders rights.

In some instances restructuring the mortgage is more profitable for the banks, in others repossessions would be more profitable.

The fact of the matter is, their needs to be more repossessions. There needs to be a realistic risk of repossession to deter people who can pay deciding not to pay. That would just make the crisis wen worse.

Seaneh · 15-03-2013 09:25AM

IM0 wrote: »

and people who have these ideas in this thread are either the people the OP is talking about or have as little of an understanding of economics as you seem to be accusing others of having of no clue what they are talking about or vested interests!

touche sir touche!

In coherent English, please?

johnwest288 · 15-03-2013 09:28AM

Best thing to do is throw all those families in arrears onto the street. Sell the house for half nothing.

Now what to do with these thousands of families left on the street

...
Oh yes... Right Get the government to pay for their accommodation as they have no home;)....
So instead of the family coming to a deal with the bank the government (ie Joe Public) end up paying for the familys accomodation anyway:rolleyes:

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 09:32AM

johnwest288 wrote: »

Best thing to do is throw all those families in arrears onto the street. Sell the house for half nothing.

Now what to do with these thousands of families left on the street ...
Oh yes... Right Get the government to pay for their accommodation as they have no home;)....
So instead of the family coming to a deal with the bank the government (ie Joe Public) end up paying for the familys accomodation anyway:rolleyes:

Just because a house is repossessed doesn't mean the family will be on the street. They could move into a rented house with payments they can afford.

No one is asking for every single mortgage in default to be repossessed. Don't be so dramatic.

IM0 · 15-03-2013 09:35AM

was interested to find out the change and history of the % of home ownership in ireland throught modern history, say last 100 yrs with the focus being on the 1980's - pre boom period - boom - now

and found this, makes for interesting reading

http://dublinopinion.com/2007/06/25/irish-home-ownership-myths-and-reality/

IM0 · 15-03-2013 09:44AM

Seaneh wrote: »

In coherent English, please?

edited for you!

I knew it didnt make full sense the end of it but I proof read it loads and couldnt string the end together propperly, now thanks to you it has been done :P

Seaneh · 15-03-2013 09:46AM

IM0 wrote: »

edited for you!

I knew it didnt make full sense the end of it but I proof read it loads and couldnt string the end together propperly, now thanks to you it has been done :P

it's still rambling and nonsensical.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 10:10AM

Three Seasons wrote: »

Just because a house is repossessed doesn't mean the family will be on the street. They could move into a rented house with payments they can afford.

No one is asking for every single mortgage in default to be repossessed. Don't be so dramatic.

Ah I see. So only some who have defaulted should lose not everyone who has defaulted. Thanks god that shanty town would have been massive.

It is incorrect to suggest people want massive right down of loans. The fact of the matter is there will be a massive right down of debt because current borrowing levels are unsustainable. It's how banks and people who borrowed deal with the issue that matters.

People who have a shortfall in there payment back after forclosure shouldn't be allowed to walk away with no penalty, but hey have lost their home. And as the professionals in the whole lending process the banks are going to have to take a hit in the balance of money owed.

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 10:13AM

Seaneh wrote: »

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.

I have seen people mention that economists and the IMF are anti repossessions. Any idea of a source for that?
As far as im aware they and anyone with a quarter functioning brain would believe that they are part of the solution. I believe that wherever the cost to the taxpayer of repossession is less then that of debt restructuring / forgiveness etc then the house must be repossessed.

Any link to 15% of homeowners being in arrears?
As far as Im aware its 12% of mortgage's of homeowners and about 18% of buy to let investment mortgages. There is also more then a third of home owners who are mortgage free.

The banks didnt **** it up on their own. There was the former party of power, and those who bought properties and so dictated prices. The bank owners have lost most. Id like to see criminal charges against others but thats beside the point.

Seaneh wrote: »

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.

Actually those who are most verbal are surely the vested interest groups who own distressed properties. There would seem to be quite a few on this thread but they arent letting on.

There would seem to be plenty of people on this thread with a vested interest. I am one. I have been looking to purchase a home for over 9 years now and am continuing to wait until I find the right property at the right price. Some here consider that to be the behaviour of a hyenna.

Can you explain why I should pay more then a fair market value for a property or anything else for that matter?

Do you realise that a decade of rent coupled with the high interest rates now being charged to pay for others mistakes means that I may actually be paying more for my home then if I had bought at a higher sticker price with a tracker 10 years ago?

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 10:21AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Ah I see. So only some who have defaulted should lose not everyone who has defaulted. Thanks god that shanty town would have been massive.

I think he means that those whose mortgage can be restructured satisfactorily would not have the property repossessed.

Talk of people being homeless and of shanty towns is disingenuous and alarmist.
Have you heard of the rental phenomenon?

As a matter of interest do you think if you have trouble paying your car payments it shouldnt be taken off you?
The principal reason im against repossession in certain cases is there are just too many cases and it would not always be in the interest of the taxpayer.

JRant · 15-03-2013 10:24AM

Some interesting statistics for the scaremongers out there regarding the real state we find outselves.

"The Central Bank today publishes the latest data on mortgage arrears, repossessions and restructures for the period ending December 2012.[1] The figures show that 94,488 (11.9 per cent) private residential mortgage accounts for principal dwelling houses (PDH) were in arrears of over 90 days at end-December, up from 91,358 accounts (11.5 per cent) at end-September 2012. This increase of 3.4 per cent in the number of PDH accounts in arrears of over 90 days is the slowest quarter-on-quarter rate of increase since these statistics were first collected in September 2009. The rate of increase in the number of PDH accounts in arrears of over 180 days also slowed, to 5.4 per cent in Q4. However, the number of accounts in the category of arrears over 720 days increased by 14.1 per cent in Q4 compared to Q3. At end-December there were 23,523"

http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/ResidentialMortgageArrearsandRepossessionsStatisticsQ42012.aspx

Reading these figures gives a much clearer view of the scale of the problem. 23,523 people are in arrears of 2 years or more and its these ones that for the most part repossession is the only option left. I've no idea why people keep going on about hundreds of thousands of people ending up on the streets when the true figure of people facing the very real threat of repossession is significantly lower.

IM0 · 15-03-2013 10:26AM

Seaneh wrote: »

it's still rambling and nonsensical.

no you just cant understand it just like the rest of the sense said in this thread, not my problem

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 10:48AM

Why is the tax payer even concerned with banks, mortgage repossessions in the first place. Read my posts I am not suggesting 100% forgiveness on mortgages. I am realistic in thinking there will be a percentage of he debt written off no matte how much you may dislike it. The reason you dislike an y debt write down is because the banks are partially owned by the tax payer.

They should never have been nationalised in the first place.

Balmed Out wrote: »

I think he means that those whose mortgage can be restructured satisfactorily would not have the property repossessed.

Talk of people being homeless and of shanty towns is disingenuous and alarmist.
Have you heard of the rental phenomenon?

As a matter of interest do you think if you have trouble paying your car payments it shouldnt be taken off you?
The principal reason im against repossession in certain cases is there are just too many cases and it would not always be in the interest of the taxpayer.

Seaneh · 15-03-2013 10:55AM

JRant wrote: »

Some interesting statistics for the scaremongers out there regarding the real state we find outselves.

"The Central Bank today publishes the latest data on mortgage arrears, repossessions and restructures for the period ending December 2012.[1] The figures show that 94,488 (11.9 per cent) private residential mortgage accounts for principal dwelling houses (PDH) were in arrears of over 90 days at end-December, up from 91,358 accounts (11.5 per cent) at end-September 2012. This increase of 3.4 per cent in the number of PDH accounts in arrears of over 90 days is the slowest quarter-on-quarter rate of increase since these statistics were first collected in September 2009. The rate of increase in the number of PDH accounts in arrears of over 180 days also slowed, to 5.4 per cent in Q4. However, the number of accounts in the category of arrears over 720 days increased by 14.1 per cent in Q4 compared to Q3. At end-December there were 23,523"

http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/ResidentialMortgageArrearsandRepossessionsStatisticsQ42012.aspx

Reading these figures gives a much clearer view of the scale of the problem. 23,523 people are in arrears of 2 years or more and its these ones that for the most part repossession is the only option left. I've no idea why people keep going on about hundreds of thousands of people ending up on the streets when the true figure of people facing the very real threat of repossession is significantly lower.

Ah, so just 23,523 people who should be made homeless and leave the government to pick up the bill rather than, I don't know, meeting them and figuring out what they can afford and tacking on a few extra years to the mortgage so that the bank still gets the full ammount, the occupier still has a home and the taxpayer doesn't get shafted?

Because, you know, just kicking people out of their houses and flooding the market with cheap property will have no adverse affects at all at all at all...

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 10:56AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Why is the tax payer even concerned with banks, mortgage repossessions in the first place. Read my posts I am not against 100% forgiveness on mortgages. I am realistic in thinking there will be a percentage of he debt written off no matte how much you may dislike it. The reason you dislike anyndebtnwrite down is because the banks are partially owned by the tax payer.

They should never have been nationalised in the first place.

Sorry but i havent a clue what you mean.
You want 100% forgiveness on mortgages??? Surely a mistake, but then you also bring up homeless masses and shanty towns so who knows.

I'm well aware of my reasons for my opinions, you don't.
Whenever a debt goes unpaid it leaves someone somewhere unpaid and I don't like that. The fact that the someone somewhere is the Irish taxpayer makes it a little more personal. Only a fool would think all these debts will be paid, I just want to see as much as is reasonably possible to be paid.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 10:57AM

JR I don't recall reading about 100's of thousands ending up homeless. Maybe you could post a link? Your hyperbole statement is no better than the scaremongers you refer too.

The reason the respossessions haven't been significant is because the banks are not pushing for it at the moment. They are trying to keep values inflated. I do know of some buy to let repossessions which have sold for significantly less than purchase price.

RayCon · 15-03-2013 10:58AM

Seaneh wrote: »

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.

Can we bookmark this please .....

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 11:02AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Ah, so just 23,523 people who should be made homeless and leave the government to pick up the bill rather than, I don't know, meeting them and figuring out what they can afford and tacking on a few extra years to the mortgage so that the bank still gets the full ammount, the occupier still has a home and the taxpayer doesn't get shafted?

Because, you know, just kicking people out of their houses and flooding the market with cheap property will have no adverse affects at all at all at all...

Alarmist nonsense. thousands who rent their home homeless ????

Is there a legal impairment on people who have had a home repossessed from being allowed rent in the future?

No one has said everybody in arrears should be evicted. Repossession is not the preferable option for those who restructuring debt is viable, or who debt forgiveness will cost the tax payer less then repossession

JRant · 15-03-2013 11:04AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Why is the tax payer even concerned with banks, mortgage repossessions in the first place. Read my posts I am not against 100% forgiveness on mortgages. I am realistic in thinking there will be a percentage of he debt written off no matte how much you may dislike it. The reason you dislike anyndebtnwrite down is because the banks are partially owned by the tax payer.

They should never have been nationalised in the first place.

Your right that the debt should never have been put on the citizens of this country but there was a referendum recently and the wise people of this country decided it was after all their debt.
Now coming at it with this in mind, we the citizens have an interest in getting a return for any recapitalization of the banks. Why should 4 million citizens interests be usurped by 23,523 people who are over 2 years in arrears. Thats 2 years of not even making payments on the loans interest, effectively living rent free off the back of the ordinary citizen.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 11:04AM

Typo replace agree with suggest. For clarification I'm not for 100% forgiveness on debt.

And the nationalisation of the banks?

Balmed Out wrote: »

Sorry but i havent a clue what you mean.
You want 100% forgiveness on mortgages??? Surely a mistake, but then you also bring up homeless masses and shanty towns so who knows.

I'm well aware of my reasons for my opinions, you don't.
Whenever a debt goes unpaid it leaves someone somewhere unpaid and I don't like that. The fact that the someone somewhere is the Irish taxpayer makes it a little more personal. Only a fool would think all these debts will be paid, I just want to see as much as is reasonably possible to be paid.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 11:05AM

What referendum did we have on nationalising the bank of its debts?

JRant wrote: »

Your right that the debt should never have been put on the citizens of this country but there was a referendum recently and the wise people of this country decided it was after all their debt.
Now coming at it with this in mind, we the citizens have an interest in getting a return for any recapitalization of the banks. Why should 4 million citizens interests be usurped by 23,523 people who are over 2 years in arrears. Thats 2 years of not even making payments on the loans interest, effectively living rent free off the back of the ordinary citizen.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 11:08AM

JRant wrote: »

Your right that the debt should never have been put on the citizens of this country but there was a referendum recently and the wise people of this country decided it was after all their debt.
Now coming at it with this in mind, we the citizens have an interest in getting a return for any recapitalization of the banks. Why should 4 million citizens interests be usurped by 23,523 people who are over 2 years in arrears. Thats 2 years of not even making payments on the loans interest, effectively living rent free off the back of the ordinary citizen.

The question you should be asking is why are the banks not protecting the tax payers money by sorting out those 23,000 mortgages.

the groutch · 15-03-2013 11:08AM

The inherent problem though is that there is those who CAN'T pay, and those who WON'T pay.
And most of those who won't pay are doing so because of the lack of reposessions makes them think "why bother paying, they're not going to do anything about it".
There needs to be at least one round of reposessions without any debt writedowns, just to put the fear of God into the won't-pays.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 11:11AM

People who won't pay should be dealt with severely.

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 11:12AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Typo replace agree with suggest. For clarification I'm not for 100% forgiveness on debt.

And the nationalisation of the banks?

How is that relevant?

House repossession rates are far too low

Comments