House repossession rates are far too low

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 01:42PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

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.

So you think you can read people's minds now.

If you want people in Ireland to be as happy as possible you should be in favour of a higher rate of repossessions.

Your reasoning is ill informed and very basic. You look at one action and see some people losing their homes, you don't look at the bigger picture and see the misery as a result of not repossessing more homes. You can't join the dots and see the poverty that will be created by such low repossession rates. You can't see the suffering ordinary families trying to make ends meat will have to endure as a result of a low repossession rate.

You are obsessed with an idea in your head of the rich and the poor and how the greedy rich want to fukc over the poor for their evil profitable gain.

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 01:44PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

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.

They have taken a hit. Shareholder value is worthless.

Why does that give people the right to break their contracts?

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 01:45PM

Three Seasons wrote: »

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.

That's idiocy; that's saying banks should be free from responsibility, for lax lending which has caused significant damage to society and the economy.

It's really bizarre that people abdicate the banks of responsibility like that, even when that amounts to fraud, and even try to spread doubt and denial over the fraud itself; you'd think they work in finance themselves.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 01:48PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

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.

Yes it does smack of that; I would be interested myself, in getting onto the housing market at the low-end, but I keep aware of the massive moral/legal/ethical issues at stake here, whereas others are ok with what amounts to screwing people over (and promoting banks not taking their share of responsibility), so long as it will save them some money, or get them onto the property market earlier.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 01:53PM

Three Seasons wrote: »

So you think you can read people's minds now.

If you want people in Ireland to be as happy as possible you should be in favour of a higher rate of repossessions.

Your reasoning is ill informed and very basic. You look at one action and see some people losing their homes, you don't look at the bigger picture and see the misery as a result of not repossessing more homes. You can't join the dots and see the poverty that will be created by such low repossession rates. You can't see the suffering ordinary families trying to make ends meat will have to endure as a result of a low repossession rate.

You are obsessed with an idea in your head of the rich and the poor and how the greedy rich want to fukc over the poor for their evil profitable gain.

I don't claim to read peoples minds at all but you obviously do.:pac: Your the one obsessed with seeing people chucked out of their houses without any implications for the banks. :eek:. I am a capitalist and a would be libertarian in my views. I have no objection to the banks repossessing. My objection is to them walking away scot free like you.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 01:54PM

Three Seasons wrote: »

If you want people in Ireland to be as happy as possible you should be in favour of a higher rate of repossessions.

Yes the people suffering repossessions will be delighted no doubt.

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 01:55PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

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.

Can you quote where I said that also? If you read the thread you can see what has been said for yourself. Maybe this is the problem with some people, they want all the information handed to them and don't want to make an effort to do any research for themselves??

restructuring mortgages until your nineties, shanty towns, skid row, the banks fault, rabble, rabble :rolleyes:

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 01:55PM

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?

Im getting really fed up here. You ignore so much and infer so much its ridiculous. If youre trolling then well done, if not then dear lord....

I responded to the suggestion that people who wish to buy are too vocal on issues that affect property prices by asking why we should be prepared to pay more then whats justified.

People are not continuously blaming inflated house prices on repossessions. People are saying its a factor in our nonfunctional property market.

Derailing the thread but a quick list of things that would need to change to have a functioning market in my humble opinin would be -

NAMA start selling a significant number of properties.
Bankruptcy laws are reformed.
Repossessions occur where necessary,
The ongoing uncertainty as to the implications of People in Negative equity is resolved, i dont know how but i suppose theres lots of things to investigate- banks taking equity in homes ? allowing the transfer of negative equity from one property/mortgage to another?
A clearer idea of long term interest rates.

The key is uncertainty the more removed and the less government interference the more people will have confidence in investing in the market.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 01:57PM

Three Seasons wrote: »

They have taken a hit. Shareholder value is worthless.

Why does that give people the right to break their contracts?

They need to take a bigger hit. And they need to pay back that 60 billion they have been given by the tax payer.

Where have i said it is okay to break the contract. I have stated numerous times there will be implications for the mortgage holder. They will lose their home and will have a balance to pay.

Its the balance they have to pay which should be shared by the bank/mortgage holder. I am sure this is already happening behind closed doors. Do you resent mutually agreed debt write down?

JRant · 15-03-2013 01:59PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Sorry but you're burying your head in the sand there, if you really think there wasn't any fraud, especially when I've not just given you a study on it from one of the most well regarded criminologists (and previously a regulator during the US 'savings and loans' crisis, who helped put a lot of people in jail), and from a whistleblower in Ireland who directly saw it.

You have to be willfully blind in those instances, to say there was no fraud, with those and multiple other stories of banks throwing out loans with abandon, in breach of their lending criteria.

Yes, people who signed up for mortgages should be responsible for their actions, and the banks theirs, which includes having inflated the property prices in the first place, and having cost a lot of people their jobs through the ensuing crisis.

You want to ignore the responsibility of the banks though, and put the lot on homeowners, saying 'they signed a contract', as if it justifies the banks wrongdoing, illegality and immorality; just by making that very argument you try to absolve them of responsibility.

Even people who fulfilled all your criteria above have been screwed! People who had perfectly sustainable mortgages before the crisis, are now at risk, and this is due to losing their jobs, and being unable to get a job again due to the crisis, the crisis which the banks created.

You think the responsibility is a purely black/white thing here, and in doing so you put 100% responsibility on the homeowner when it is shared, and bury your head into the sand when it comes to actions of the banks; to you when it comes to the size of and inability to pay the debt, the banks are faultless pretty much, despite being the direct cause of both those problems.

If banks share responsibility in any way for the crisis, that necessarily means they share part of the responsibility both for the amount of debt people are in, and their inability to pay it; all of that despite contracts.

KyussBishop wrote: »

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

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

Again, willfully blind.

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.

The lines I have highlighted clearly show how you are trying to misrepresent what I have stated.
Show me where I have said there was no fraud. What I have said is that I don't know but that if it was as clear cut as you make out then surely somebody somewhere would be taking action in the courts.
Again, show me where I said the banks have no responsibility. I have merely being saying that ultimately the responsibility falls on the individual to honor their commitments unless it can be proven fraud has occurred.
Whats so wrong with that?

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 02:00PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I don't claim to read peoples minds at all but you obviously do.:pac: Your the one obsessed with seeing people chucked out of their houses without any implications for the banks. :eek:. I am a capitalist and a would be libertarian in my views. I have no objection to the banks repossessing. My objection is to them walking away scot free like you.

If people in the banks broke the law the courts need to punish them.

If the bank makes bad business decisions they suffer through losses. Simple as that. Bad business decisions is not a crime. If Apple being out a crap iPhone does an make losses they have suffered. If a bank makes bad business decisions it suffers through losses like any business. Business aren't obliged to make good business decisions. They must simply comply with the law and regulations.

If you by an iPhone and then hear that apple made bad business decisions and made huge losses do you think you deserve a refund?

I am not obsessed with seeing people chucked out of their homes. I simply said the rate is too low.

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 02:01PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

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.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

.....................................
Its the balance they have to pay which should be shared by the bank/mortgage holder. I am sure this is already happening behind closed doors. Do you resent mutually agreed debt write down?

:pac::pac:

So nobody is looking for a write down??

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 02:01PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

My objection is to them walking away scot free like you.

the banks were owned entities.
their owners had their investment pretty much wiped out.
They paid a higher price then anyone. If you want individuals held accountable criminally thats a diffferent matter but they are just employees. The owners paid and paid dearly.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:03PM

Boombastic wrote: »

:pac::pac:

So nobody is looking for a write down??

I'm not looking for any write down. But it is nice that you take pleasure in misery. :pac: Good luck in your house hunting at the low end.

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 02:05PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm not looking for any write down. But it is nice that you take pleasure in misery. :pac:

It would seem you are the one who wants more misery judging by your approval of low repossession rates.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 02:05PM

Balmed Out wrote: »

Im getting really fed up here. You ignore so much and infer so much its ridiculous. If youre trolling then well done, if not then dear lord....

I responded to the suggestion that people who wish to buy are too vocal on issues that affect property prices by asking why we should be prepared to pay more then whats justified.

The "issues that affect property prices" bit here, was repossessions, as quoted directly from the post you were replying to:

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.

I accept this is not what you meant now though, and that the positions put on you in my post do not apply, but the implication was there, even though that is not what you meant.

Balmed Out wrote: »

People are not continuously blaming inflated house prices on repossessions. People are saying its a factor in our nonfunctional property market.

Derailing the thread but a quick list of things that would need to change to have a functioning market in my humble opinin would be -

NAMA start selling a significant number of properties.
Bankruptcy laws are reformed.
Repossessions occur where necessary,
The ongoing uncertainty as to the implications of People in Negative equity is resolved, i dont know how but i suppose theres lots of things to investigate- banks taking equity in homes ? allowing the transfer of negative equity from one property/mortgage to another?
A clearer idea of long term interest rates.

The key is uncertainty the more removed and the less government interference the more people will have confidence in investing in the market.

I'd agree with most of that, and the main area I disagree with other posters, is the extent to banks responsibility (I still can't quite fathom why some posters are trying to totally abdicate them of responsibility, in the area of the size of debt or the inability to pay), and thus how much of a hit they need to take before repossessions should be looked at as a serious option.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:06PM

Balmed Out wrote: »

the banks were owned entities.
their owners had their investment pretty much wiped out.
They paid a higher price then anyone. If you want individuals held accountable criminally thats a diffferent matter but they are just employees. The owners paid and paid dearly.

Certainly there are some directors who should be in court at the very least. As usual things move very slowly in the judicial system here.

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 02:06PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm not looking for any write down. But it is nice that you take pleasure in misery. :pac:

But you agree some people should get a write down, isn't that what you've said in a few of your posts??

They probably can't afford the internet to come on and say it themselves or maybe the card boxes in the shanty towns are lacking electricity?

JRant · 15-03-2013 02:07PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

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?

I still don't see how they would turn a profit on a property worth 60% of the original sale value. Would you care to elaborate on how they would achieve this accounting marvel.

One reason I can see the banks pursuing some the really poor performing loans is that it would clear up a lot of uncertainty. A bank can plan for the losses it will occur but only when it knows the full extent of the damage. By leaving so many in limbo, so to speak, the banks are unsure of where they stand and as a result the market stagnates more as they are unwilling to lend to new customers. It would be these new customers who would eventually help the banks turn profitable again and keep the economic wheels turning.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:08PM

Three Seasons wrote: »

It would seem you are the one who wants more misery judging by your approval of low repossession rates.

Where have I approved of low repossession rates

. I want an actual quote this time no fluffing. I just don't take pleasure in it and rub my hands at the idea of buying a house cheap as chips.:pac:

The banks themselves are responsible for the number of repossessions along with government.

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 02:09PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Where have I approved of low repossession rates. I want an actual quote this time no fluffing. I just don't take pleasure in it and rub my hands at the idea of buying a house cheap as chips.:pac:

The banks themselves are responsible for the number of repossessions along with government.

So do you agree their needs to be a higher rate of repossessions?

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:10PM

Boombastic wrote: »

But you agree some people should get a write down, isn't that what you've said in a few of your posts??

They probably can't afford the internet to come on and say it themselves or maybe the card boxes in the shanty towns are lacking electricity?

I'm saying they will get a write down with the right representation. When they are in negotiations with the bank they sign non disclosure agreements and cannot come on here as they would be putting any negotiations or agreements at risk.

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:11PM

Three Seasons wrote: »

So do you agree their needs to be a higher rate of repossessions?

Yes but under strict supervision.

Now how about that quote. Otherwise an apology is in order.

Boombastic · 15-03-2013 02:11PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

........... :pac: Good luck in your house hunting at the low end.

Good luck living on skid row, I might throw you some spare change if i'm in a generous mood :pac:

Bullseye1 · 15-03-2013 02:12PM

Boombastic wrote: »

Good luck living on skid row, I might throw you some spare change if i'm in a generous mood :pac:

:rolleyes:

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 02:12PM

JRant wrote: »

The lines I have highlighted clearly show how you are trying to misrepresent what I have stated.
Show me where I have said there was no fraud. What I have said is that I don't know but that if it was as clear cut as you make out then surely somebody somewhere would be taking action in the courts.
Again, show me where I said the banks have no responsibility. I have merely being saying that ultimately the responsibility falls on the individual to honor their commitments unless it can be proven fraud has occurred.
Whats so wrong with that?

The responsibility of the banks isn't limited to fraud, that is just one of many instances (towards the worse end of things) where they share serious responsibility; the banks inherently share responsibility for the size of the debt (through inflating the property bubble), and the inability of debtors to pay it (due to causing massive unemployment, through the economic crisis they caused).

By trying to put 100% of the responsibility onto the homeowners, that inherently means you are trying to limit the banks responsibility, by abdicating the above two significant areas of fault on the banks part.

Any acknowledgment of the banks fault in the case of the size of the debt or the inability of debtors to pay it, inherently means putting 100% of the responsibility onto homeowners is wrong, and contracts do not right that.

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 02:13PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

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:

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.

I think it addressed your post perfectly! My point is people are directly responsible for paying what they chose to pay. It was never their only option. The banks are nobody's mummy.

If your not an adult and unable to take responsibility for your actions or you suffer from some sort of mental handicap and the bank gave you and you alone a mortgage then youre correct and the bank is directly responsible for allowing you to get a mortgage.

Do we need greater banking control, sure. Its a bit like a football match that descends into a fight. Its the players fault and responsibility but we'd have like if the referee had been able to prevent it.

KyussBishop · 15-03-2013 02:14PM

Balmed Out wrote: »

the banks were owned entities.
their owners had their investment pretty much wiped out.
They paid a higher price then anyone. If you want individuals held accountable criminally thats a diffferent matter but they are just employees. The owners paid and paid dearly.

The directors and employees of many of these banks made off with huge profits through salaries, bonuses and pensions; no matter how hard the owners have been hit, none of the banks share of responsibility, can justifiably be put onto homeowners.

Three Seasons · 15-03-2013 02:18PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Yes but under strict supervision.

Now how about that quote. Otherwise an apology is in order.

You have repeatedly stated I think the banks shouldn't take a hit. Show me that quote or apologise.

Balmed Out · 15-03-2013 02:19PM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Where have I approved of low repossession rates. I want an actual quote this time no fluffing. I just don't take pleasure in it and rub my hands at the idea of buying a house cheap as chips.:pac:

The banks themselves are responsible for the number of repossessions along with government.

Can you quote someone who has said they want or expect to purchase a house as cheap as chips?

I think everyone feels for people who could be repossessed especially those who have lost jobs etc. but thats not really the point of the thread.
If you feel that the country's society and economy needs a proper functioning property market and that a higher repossession rate would be a step in that direction then youre in agreement with the op.

House repossession rates are far too low

Comments