House repossession rates are far too low

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 12:44PM

JRant wrote: »

Please read what i said and don't misrepresent what i actually stated. Those people you referred to may or may not be correct, I don't know enough so comment one way or the other. But if what your saying is true then surely we would see many many cases being brought before the courts as a result. We aren't seeing this, therefore there either isn't a case to be had or the mortgage holders are in on it too.

I'm pretty sure I haven't misrepresented anything. Your argument here is basically "if it didn't go to court and lead to a conviction, it didn't happen", which is nonsense as you can point to any number of past instances of corruption/fraud which never went prosecuted in this country (even after massive tribunals).

Does that mean it never happened? No, that's nonsense; in this case you even directly have a whistleblower who witnessed it first hand, yet you still pretend like it never happened.

JRant wrote:

I have no idea why you'd say I think the banks are 100% blameless. If a property is repossessed the bank will most certainly take a fairly big hit in the current market. Yes the person is still liable for any outstanding debt but if you were in such financial dire straits then bankruptcy wouldn't be to far behind. Like i said earlier, i truely hope the new insolvancy bill will take some of thd pressure off people stuck in this position.

If you accept any blame/responsibility on the part of banks, for driving the inflation of property prices (often fraudulently), or for causing the economic crisis, thus causing people to lose their jobs and become unable to meet mortgage payments, then that inherently means you agree they are partially responsible for the predicament these troubled homeowners are in.

By putting 100% of the cost of the banks immoral and often illegal/fraudulent actions onto the homeowner as you advocate, you either don't believe the above, or you hold an inherently contradictory position where "they signed the contract" absolves the banks of any responsibility there, for causing the homeowners predicament, and signing the contract also puts the banks responsibility onto the homeowners.

donegal_road · 15-03-2013 12:46PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

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

people who wont pay have already left these shores never to return

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 12:50PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

blame/responsibility on the part of banks, for driving the inflation of property prices

How many houses did the banks buy? Something is only worth what a person is prepared to pay for it. The banks did not drive the inflation of property prices. You could argue the profiteered of it or they accomodated it but people buying houses are the cause of house prices.

JRant · 15-03-2013 12:52PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Banks in the US have been doing exactly that, so they can force people into foreclosure/default, and then take the house and sell it on again at profit.

First, this is not the states.
Second, do you think the banks are going to make a killing on reselling any repossessed homes in Ireland? If so i would love to hear how, really.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 12:55PM

donegal_road wrote: »

people who wont pay have already left these shores never to return

We haven't really seen any figures for these 'keys through the letterbox' defaulters.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 12:59PM

Balmed Out wrote: »

Is that you Mystic Meg?
You seem to have an amazing ability to guess whats going on in the minds of others, although your completely WRONG
Where do you come up with all this nonsense. I will credit you with an inventive imagination though. 5 stars.
Can you back up that nonsense ?

You stated:

Balmed Out wrote: »

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.

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?

You lay out your vested interest here, that you are on the market looking to buy a property, and you ask "Can you explain why I should pay more then a fair market value for a property or anything else for that matter?", which directly implies you want to see the price of houses fall, through repossessions.

I can see no other reason for bringing up that sentence, in the context of the post you were replying to, other than to make that implication, and it is that implication which my post was replying to.

JRant · 15-03-2013 01:05PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I haven't misrepresented anything. Your argument here is basically "if it didn't go to court and lead to a conviction, it didn't happen", which is nonsense as you can point to any number of past instances of corruption/fraud which never went prosecuted in this country (even after massive tribunals).

Does that mean it never happened? No, that's nonsense; in this case you even directly have a whistleblower who witnessed it first hand, yet you still pretend like it never happened.

If you accept any blame/responsibility on the part of banks, for driving the inflation of property prices (often fraudulently), or for causing the economic crisis, thus causing people to lose their jobs and become unable to meet mortgage payments, then that inherently means you agree they are partially responsible for the predicament these troubled homeowners are in.

By putting 100% of the cost of the banks immoral and often illegal/fraudulent actions onto the homeowner as you advocate, you either don't believe the above, or you hold an inherently contradictory position where "they signed the contract" absolves the banks of any responsibility there, for causing the homeowners predicament, and signing the contract also puts the banks responsibility onto the homeowners.

Well i'm sure you are misrepresenting me and i'm pretty sure i'd know what my true intentions are.

Answer me this so, if the fraud is as obvious as you make out why are more people not pursuing it through the courts?

As for the rest, i've no idea what your on about. You keep banging on about the banks this and the banks that, how much responsablity should the individual take on board? Or are you suggesting the loans are ripped up and these people should just get to keep the property?

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 01:09PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

You stated:

You lay out your vested interest here, that you are on the market looking to buy a property, and you ask "Can you explain why I should pay more then a fair market value for a property or anything else for that matter?", which directly implies you want to see the price of houses fall, through repossessions.

I can see no other reason for bringing up that sentence, in the context of the post you were replying to, other than to make that implication, and it is that implication which my post was replying to.

It directly implies no such think.
I have said " 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".

Repossession has a place in any functioning property market.We dont have one for a variety of reasons.

Your post went on to accuse me of being totally selfish and wanting to throw people to the streets etc.

JRant · 15-03-2013 01:10PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

You stated:

You lay out your vested interest here, that you are on the market looking to buy a property, and you ask "Can you explain why I should pay more then a fair market value for a property or anything else for that matter?", which directly implies you want to see the price of houses fall, through repossessions.

I can see no other reason for bringing up that sentence, in the context of the post you were replying to, other than to make that implication, and it is that implication which my post was replying to.

With all due respect Balmed Out clearly declared their interests outright, there is nothing wrong with that at all in a healthy debate.
What's wrong with stating that you would like to own a property but are effectively frozen out of the market due to other peoples gambles?

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 01:12PM

Grayson wrote: »

I'm already paying for their house. As is every tax payer in this country. If I'm going to pay for it, I don't see why they should get to live there rent free.

Debt isn't rent-free! That's nonsense, these people aren't being given houses to live in forevermore, which they would never pay another cent to.

Again, you are ensuring the taxpayer foots the bill, by forcing a repossession and default, and you are ensuring the taxpayer foots and even greater bill, for the families that have to avail of welfare services in order to avoid becoming homeless.

Grayson wrote: »

It's not like these woke up one morning and discovered they were the owners of a three bed semi detached with decking. They went looking for houses. Probably saw more than one. they went shopping for a mortgage. They probably checked more than one bank. They got together all their information and submitted it. And then they signed their agreements.

People were greedy and blind and ignored the bloody obvious. They signed up for those mortgages. They created a bubble and kept it going.

Again, more of the same nonsense, putting 100% of the blame on the homeowners and none on the banks; nevermind the illegality and fraud committed by banks along the way, they are free from fault there too apparently.

Straight out hypocrisy really, that you apply a strict standard to homeowners, and no standard at all to the banks.

Grayson wrote: »

You're the one that wants a nanny state where people can do anything they want and the state will bail them out. Well, tough, if they signed up to an agreement, they should keep that agreement.

I expect to see you defending the morbidly obese next week. It's not their fault. KFC kept selling them buckets of chicken. It's KFC's fault.

That's bullshít, quote where I said anything like that.

What people got bailed out??? No people got bailed out, it's the banks that got bailed out, right? They've already massively screwed over the taxpayers in the country, and here you are arguing that they should doubly screw-over homeowners as well, whose predicament they created.

Total hypocrisy and willful blindness to the faults of banks.

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 01:12PM

It's amazing how people who overpaid for houses they couldn't afford, are now an authority on all things banks and mortgage related. It's a pity they didn't put this wonderful knowledge in to practice before purchasing.

JRant · 15-03-2013 01:13PM

Balmed Out wrote: »

It directly implies no such think.
I have said " 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".

Repossession has a place in any functioning property market.We dont have one for a variety of reasons.

Your post went on to accuse me of being totally selfish and wanting to throw people to the streets etc.

But, but, but, it's all the banks fault.

Gosub · 15-03-2013 01:15PM

This is a personal view. I'ts not a thinly vieled anything. I'm ready to buy a property in Ireland with a view to moving back from Spain. I have the cash sitting in a Spanish bank. I've made two trips to Ireland specifically to view properties for sale. In general the value, in my opinion, is poor at the moment. So, I'll wait until value returns. If it takes repossessions to make the market more realistic, that's what I will wait for.

When I get back to Ireland, I will be buying a new car, equipment for the house and, of course, supplies to live. I will be employing professionals and tradespeople to do the work necessary to get the house transferred to my ownership and to the condition that I need. All of this is stimulating the economy. None of this is going to happen until value returns to the market.

I know my money returning to the country isn't going to help a lot, but multiply my input by X and it will all add up. Let's face it, the country needs incoming funds. I guess I will have to keep paying my tax money to the Spanish government until the market in Ireland is allowed to find it's own level.

Even the blind here must see that my situation is bad for Ireland. Artificially supporting house prices is bad for the country.

Edit. Focusing on the past and what has happened won't help us move forward. Sure, the banks etc screwed us over. Learn from that and move forward.

donegal_road · 15-03-2013 01:15PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

We haven't really seen any figures for these 'keys through the letterbox' defaulters.

and there is good reason for this. If the public were made aware of how many defaulters have taken flight, it would encourage an avalanche of copy cats.

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 01:16PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Total hypocrisy and willful blindness.

That sums up a lot doesn't it?

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 01:17PM

Balmed Out wrote: »

How many houses did the banks buy? Something is only worth what a person is prepared to pay for it. The banks did not drive the inflation of property prices. You could argue the profiteered of it or they accomodated it but people buying houses are the cause of house prices.

It's very basic economics that house prices are driven by the availability of credit, and that when lending is lax and credit is thrown out with abandon, asset prices, particularly houses, will get bid up and will inflate, and people have no control over that, because it takes only a minority of people to bid up house prices, before the entire market starts inflating.

When there's an asset bubble, you don't choose what to pay, you pay the inflated price, and it takes a minority of people to push those prices up, which affects everyone else in the market.

You have to be deliberately blind, to ignore lax lending from banks, as the direct cause of the property price inflation.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 01:21PM

JRant wrote: »

First, this is not the states.
Second, do you think the banks are going to make a killing on reselling any repossessed homes in Ireland? If so i would love to hear how, really.

You asked "Why would a bank go after a performing loan, even if it is in short term arrears?", I answered:
"Banks in the US have been doing exactly that, so they can force people into foreclosure/default, and then take the house and sell it on again at profit."

Doesn't matter if this is the states or not, that is why they would go after performing loans.

If you don't think banks are going to make a profit from repossessions, then why on earth are you arguing for it, when that would inherently hit the taxpayer harder?

JRant · 15-03-2013 01:24PM

Gosub wrote: »

This is a personal view. I'ts not a thinly vieled anything. I'm ready to buy a property in Ireland with a view to moving back from Spain. I have the cash sitting in a Spanish bank. I've made two trips to Ireland specifically to view properties for sale. In general the value, in my opinion, is poor at the moment. So, I'll wait until value returns. If it takes repossessions to make the market more realistic, that's what I will wait for.

When I get back to Ireland, I will be buying a new car, equipment for the house and, of course, supplies to live. I will be employing professionals and tradespeople to do the work necessary to get the house transferred to my ownership and to the condition that I need. All of this is stimulating the economy. None of this is going to happen until value returns to the market.

I know my money returning to the country isn't going to help a lot, but multiply my input by X and it will all add up. Let's face it, the country needs incoming funds. I guess I will have to keep paying my tax money to the Spanish government until the market in Ireland is allowed to find it's own level.

Even the blind here must see that my situation is bad for Ireland. Artificially supporting house prices is bad for the country.

Edit. Focusing on the past and what has happened won't help us move forward. Sure, the banks etc screwed us over. Learn from that and move forward.

Well fair play to you, hopefully more people who left are shores will be willing to come back and contribute to the country as a whole.

There are many people here renting who would be in the same boat as yourself. It still doesn't make sense to buy with all this uncertainty hanging over the market.

Anyway, I hope it works out for you in the not to distant future.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 01:25PM

JRant wrote: »

Well i'm sure you are misrepresenting me and i'm pretty sure i'd know what my true intentions are.

Well then quote it instead of alleging it; where have I misrepresented you?

JRant wrote: »

Answer me this so, if the fraud is as obvious as you make out why are more people not pursuing it through the courts?

Here, if you think this fraud is nonexistent, then this guy must be lying so?
http://whistleblowerirl.blogspot.ie/

Again, willfully blind.

JRant wrote: »

As for the rest, i've no idea what your on about. You keep banging on about the banks this and the banks that, how much responsablity should the individual take on board? Or are you suggesting the loans are ripped up and these people should just get to keep the property?

They should pay their debts, and be given ample opportunity to pay them (including restructuring and given lots of time to regain jobs); I haven't said anything other than this, and I have certainly not advocated writing off whole debts.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 01:25PM

Boombastic wrote: »

It's amazing how people who overpaid for houses they couldn't afford, are now an authority on all things banks and mortgage related. It's a pity they didn't put this wonderful knowledge in to practice before purchasing.

This post is full of winning.:rolleyes:

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 01:28PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's very basic economics that house prices are driven by supply and demand, bla bla bla

I am in my mid 30's, I have plenty of friends in the same situation as me. We all wished to purchase homes but have not due to high properties. We could have gotten loans but chose not to as we seem to be in the rare position of living in an area whereby bankers are not armed with shot guns forcing poor innocent victims to buy mortgages.
Many more of my friends decided that whilst they felt prices were high it was a gamble worth taking. Nearly all of them have tracker mortgages and are quite possibly better off then those that rented and will pay far higher interest rates when we do commit to buying. Their biggest negative point is that those who are in negative equity are stuck if they decide to trade up as apparently a negative equity mortgage would result in the loss of the tracker.

"you don't choose what to pay, you pay the inflated price" - if you really believe this then I hope you are not in charge of your own finances

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 01:30PM

Balmed Out wrote: »

It directly implies no such think.

Then what were you implying?

You said:

Balmed Out wrote:

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.

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?

In the context of that, what did you mean then, by the second sentence? What, exactly, is preventing you from paying a fair market value, and what needs to change to make the value 'fair'?

In the context of this thread, with people continually blaming the inflated house prices on the lack of repossessions, what else is that in reference to other than repossessions?

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 01:32PM

JRant wrote: »

With all due respect Balmed Out clearly declared their interests outright, there is nothing wrong with that at all in a healthy debate.
What's wrong with stating that you would like to own a property but are effectively frozen out of the market due to other peoples gambles?

Balmed Out also thanks this post, where you say he is "frozen out of the market due to other peoples gambles"; what is this supposed to imply, other than that he wants repossessions, to unfreeze the market? (and for his own selfish gain, to try and bottom out the market so he can get cheap property)

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 01:32PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's very basic economics that house prices are driven by the availability of credit, and that when lending is lax and credit is thrown out with abandon, asset prices, particularly houses, will get bid up and will inflate, and people have no control over that, because it takes only a minority of people to bid up house prices, before the entire market starts inflating.

When there's an asset bubble, you don't choose what to pay, you pay the inflated price, and it takes a minority of people to push those prices up, which affects everyone else in the market.

You have to be deliberately blind, to ignore lax lending from banks, as the direct cause of the property price inflation.

Dear God it's like talking to a brick wall.

The property bubble was caused by house buyers primarily and also the government and cheap credit.

Banks should be allowed to make the mistake of lax lending, I don't see what is wrong with that, let them make stupid decisions and let them go out of business. It was the governments fault for bailing them out.

Likewise house buyers should be allowed to make stupid decisions and suffer the consequences.

Why do banks making bad business decisions make mortgage holders entitled to free money? That's the banks business, not the mortgage holders. Banks are entitled to make bad business decisions just like any other business.

It doesn't matter what the cause of you losing your job is. You still must adhere to the contract you signed. It is not the banks job to make sure you have a job. That is YOUR responsibility.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 01:34PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Then what were you implying?

You said:

In the context of that, what did you mean then, by the second sentence? What, exactly, is preventing you from paying a fair market value, and what needs to change to make the value 'fair'?

In the context of this thread, with people continually blaming the inflated house prices on the lack of repossessions, what else is that in reference to other than repossessions?

What we are seeing is the flip side of buying on the high end with people who can barely afford to buy a property looking to buy on the extreme low end. You can feel the resentment in every sentence. I can see them rubbing the hands in glee with a glut of properties being sold by the banks in a fire sale. :pac: Unfortunately it won't be in the the affluent areas they feel they deserve.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 01:34PM

Boombastic wrote: »

It's amazing how people who overpaid for houses they couldn't afford, are now an authority on all things banks and mortgage related. It's a pity they didn't put this wonderful knowledge in to practice before purchasing.

It's amazing your ignorance here, in assuming I have a mortgage; I don't own a house, and I have never had a mortgage.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 01:36PM

Three Seasons wrote: »

Dear God it's like talking to a brick wall.

Banks should be allowed to make the mistake of lax lending, I don't see what is wrong with that, let them make stupid decisions and let them go out of business. It was the governments fault for bailing them out.

I agree with you it is like talking to a wall. :pac: The banks have made a huge mistake by giving out 100-110% mortgages and yes they should take a hit along with the mortgage holder.

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 01:36PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's amazing your ignorance here, in assuming I have a mortgage; I don't own a house, and I have never had a mortgage.

It's not my fault, it's the banks fault

Can you quote where I said you specifically?

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 01:37PM

Boombastic wrote: »

It's not my fault, it's the banks fault

Can you quote where I said you specifically?

Maybe you can quote the person who you think has a mortgage and who is looking for a write down of their debt because I haven't seen any on here.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 01:40PM

Balmed Out wrote: »

I am in my mid 30's, I have plenty of friends in the same situation as me. We all wished to purchase homes but have not due to high properties. We could have gotten loans but chose not to as we seem to be in the rare position of living in an area whereby bankers are not armed with shot guns forcing poor innocent victims to buy mortgages.
Many more of my friends decided that whilst they felt prices were high it was a gamble worth taking. Nearly all of them have tracker mortgages and are quite possibly better off then those that rented and will pay far higher interest rates when we do commit to buying. Their biggest negative point is that those who are in negative equity are stuck if they decide to trade up as apparently a negative equity mortgage would result in the loss of the tracker.

"you don't choose what to pay, you pay the inflated price" - if you really believe this then I hope you are not in charge of your own finances

Right so ignore the entirety of my post, to reply with an anecodotal non-sequitur which doesn't address anything in my post.

Here is my post again, explaining how credit and banks are directly responsible for the inflation of the property market:

KyussBishop wrote:

Balmed Out wrote: »

How many houses did the banks buy? Something is only worth what a person is prepared to pay for it. The banks did not drive the inflation of property prices. You could argue the profiteered of it or they accomodated it but people buying houses are the cause of house prices.

It's very basic economics that house prices are driven by the availability of credit, and that when lending is lax and credit is thrown out with abandon, asset prices, particularly houses, will get bid up and will inflate, and people have no control over that, because it takes only a minority of people to bid up house prices, before the entire market starts inflating.

When there's an asset bubble, you don't choose what to pay, you pay the inflated price, and it takes a minority of people to push those prices up, which affects everyone else in the market.

You have to be deliberately blind, to ignore lax lending from banks, as the direct cause of the property price inflation.

If you think leaving banks with the ability to extend enormous amounts of credit, will not lead to another bubble, and that banks would be totally free from fault for that, that displays significant ignorance of the last decade.

House repossession rates are far too low

Comments