Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

House repossession rates are far too low

Options
1…678911

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Fr_Fitzexactly
    Site Banned Posts: 85 ✭✭Fr_Fitzexactly


    anncoates wrote: »

    Fixed.

    Indeed and raise the property tax on all those pensioners sitting in huge houses so they have to move into a nursing home and free up those houses for young professionals wishing to start a family


  • Options
    #303
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,730 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


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

    sigh....you have stated that (the shareholders) have already taken a hit. That is not in question. I have not seen any of your posts which stated that the banks should take a hit on defaulted mortgages. If you like I can cut an paste your entire posts here as evidence.


  • Options
    #304
    IM0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Eh, this is nonsense; explain how flooding the market (with a massive social cost attached to that), is going to trigger any kind of reform with the real causes of the overinflated prices?

    There isn't a shortage of properties, so that makes no sense; you get a temporary decrease in prices, until the unreformed factors leading to the inflation in the first place, catch up again and start the bubble mill rolling again.

    supply and demand

    supply goes up, people feel less pressure to 'get on the property ladder' [thats another chestnut, Im only using that asa turn of phrase] before all the current houses are gone and the prices go up.

    the prices go up because the demand is there, remove the demand price goes down everyone better in long run, some who are over leavereged go to the wall, thats life.

    house prices go down, costs less to buy one, people can then SAVE to get a house by having a deposit [shock horror! :eek: ] instead of getting a rediculous 100% mortgage which they cant afford long term, the conditions you take out your mortgage under will not be the same as the conditions throughout the life of your mortgage [say 30 years] so you have to buy UNDER what you can afford, and not UP TO, alot of people didnt realise this obviously so they are the ones who will get burned, owning a house is not a right, its a privilage, they took the gamble to own one and lost BIG time.

    no one wants to rent [well those people didnt] so decided it was worth the gamble [they didnt see any because all will be rosy in the never ending boom times that was sold to them and they bought [ha!] ]


  • Options
    #305
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    JRant wrote: »
    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.
    If they wouldn't achieve that profit, why repossess them then? These homeowners aren't out of a job for life, and there's nothing stopping them restoring payments again when jobs are restored.

    Repossessions aren't going to solve the economic crisis, they only compound the banks balance-sheet problems; by kicking people out of their houses, forcing them to default, they are inherently wiping out what those people have already invested.

    Resolving the economic crisis requires a whole different, unrelated set of policies, and kicking people out onto the street compounds the crisis, increasing it's social (and potentially economic) cost, without any gain.


  • Options
    #306
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Balmed Out wrote: »
    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.
    Again, the same non-sequtur, ignoring the banks direct role in causing the property bubble, just asserting "nope, it's the buyers fault, not the banks", even though I explained at length, how it is directly the fault of the banks and government.

    Again, here is that post explaining banks direct role in causing the property boom:
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,730 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    I think this thread has run its course. Bye.


  • Options
    #308
    Three Seasons
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Three Seasons


    Bullseye1 wrote: »

    sigh....you have stated that (the shareholders) have already taken a hit. That is not in question. I have not seen any of your posts which stated that the banks should take a hit on defaulted mortgages. If you like I can cut an paste your entire posts here as evidence.

    Sigh......You said I think the banks shouldn't take a hit. Show me that quote.

    The banks should take hits on bad business decisions, I have stated that all along, shareholder value has been all but wiped out. That's a massive hit.

    You never specifically asked me about whether banks should take a hit on their mortgages.

    In anticipation of that specific question, banks should do whatever they deem is most profitable.


  • Options
    #309
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    IM0 wrote: »
    supply and demand
    Except there is not a shortage of houses, so there is already plenty of supply.

    Also, you didn't answer the question:
    KyussBishop wrote:
    explain how flooding the market (with a massive social cost attached to that), is going to trigger any kind of reform with the real causes of the overinflated prices?
    What does this do about any of the real causes of high house prices? It doesn't do anything, other than possibly provide a short-term fall in prices, if even that.

    None of the changes in the property market in your post, are magically going to happen because of repossessions.


  • Options
    #310
    JRant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,364 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    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.

    This is just turning into a circular argument because you refuse to accept that what your saying is quite untrue. I have no sympathy for the banks at all but to suggest they will not take a hit on selling off repossessed houses in this current market is beyond me. On top of the huge hit the shareholders took this will represent quite a large proportion of blame on the banking institutions.
    There are directors being investigated and hopefully more will follow suit. People are rightly angered at them but their actions in the board room have very little to do with people committing themselves to mortgages.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #311
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    I think this thread has run its course. Bye.
    Agreed; pretty much no acknowledgment that banks share any responsibility for either the size of homeowners debt (even denial of the banks role in inflating the property bubble), or responsibility for the homeowners inability to repay that debt (through causing the economic crisis, causing them to lose their jobs), and is largely a circular continued denial of that at this stage, so will leave it at that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    IM0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    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.

    banks cant do **** all without regulation to allow it, goverment decides regulation which was FINA FAIL by the way THEY were the ones in power all the way through this mess prior to during and after boom, and kept inflating the UNSUSTAINABLE property bubble and conditions by having low taxes, and throwing money at house buyers by lowering/abolishing stamp duty to keep the bull**** merry go round trundling on and ruining society as a whole which we are all paying for now, oh and they sealed the countries fate by deciding to guarantee the banks, once that was done there was no coming back its legally written in stone

    right or wrong is irrelevant its laws that count, without them society crumbles, as soon as FINA FAIL decided to guarantee the banks, all the debt of the banks was transferred to the national debt of every man woman and child in Ireland for GENERATIONS to come


  • Options
    #313
    Balmed Out
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,710 ✭✭✭Balmed Out


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Again, the same non-sequtur, ignoring the banks direct role in causing the property bubble, just asserting "nope, it's the buyers fault, not the banks", even though I explained at length, how it is directly the fault of the banks and government.

    Again, here is that post explaining banks direct role in causing the property boom:

    Ok so you are of the opinion that if you take a loan out for a new car of 5000 and pay me for my used car which you find out then is only worth 2000 its the banks fault and not yours.


  • Options
    #314
    JRant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,364 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Fr_Fitzexactly wrote: »
    Indeed and raise the property tax on all those pensioners sitting in huge houses so they have to move into a nursing home and free up those houses for young professionals wishing to start a family

    That's an interesting point and worthy of its own thread but there can be no doubt that during the 'boom' years we saw a huge transfer of wealth to the older generation.
    Maybe people who sold at the height of the boom would be happy giving some of that money back, seeing as how everyone else is now paying for it. :D

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #315
    IM0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Except there is not a shortage of houses, so there is already plenty of supply.

    Also, you didn't answer the question:

    What does this do about any of the real causes of high house prices? It doesn't do anything, other than possibly provide a short-term fall in prices, if even that.

    None of the changes in the property market in your post, are magically going to happen because of repossessions.

    Im not answering anymore till you give something to the discussion.

    what in your opinion are the REAL cause of high house prices?

    if you cant see that that is dictated by supply and demand as well as the reasons I gave there is no discussion here, and can carry on living in fantasy land


  • Options
    #316
    Three Seasons
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Three Seasons


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Agreed; pretty much no acknowledgment that banks share any responsibility for either the size of homeowners debt (even denial of the banks role in inflating the property bubble), or responsibility for the homeowners inability to repay that debt (through causing the economic crisis, causing them to lose their jobs), and is largely a circular continued denial of that at this stage, so will leave it at that.

    You aren't listening to the answers you are given. If you have a problem with the logic of the answers then address that. You are just ignoring the answers and spouting off the same nonsense.

    Once again I ask, why should mortgage holders be allowed to break their contract when the counterparty has done nothing against the terms and conditions if the contract.

    Banks aren't responsible for maintaining full employment in an economy so you have a job. You can't blame the banks for not having a job. If you could you could also blame mortgage buyers for causing unemployment.


  • Options
    #317
    JRant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,364 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Agreed; pretty much no acknowledgment that banks share any responsibility for either the size of homeowners debt (even denial of the banks role in inflating the property bubble), or responsibility for the homeowners inability to repay that debt (through causing the economic crisis, causing them to lose their jobs), and is largely a circular continued denial of that at this stage, so will leave it at that.

    Well you've been a beacon of misrepresentation, misinformation and myopic adherence to your own dogma but i've enjoyed the debate :D

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #318
    Fr_Fitzexactly
    Site Banned Posts: 85 ✭✭Fr_Fitzexactly


    JRant wrote: »

    That's an interesting point and worthy of its own thread but there can be no doubt that during the 'boom' years we saw a huge transfer of wealth to the older generation.
    Maybe people who sold at the height of the boom would be happy giving some of that money back, seeing as how everyone else is now paying for it. :D

    I was being sarcastic!

    Shocking to think that some people really think that way...Actually want to tax elderly people out of the homes they built and paid for


  • Options
    #319
    JRant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,364 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Fr_Fitzexactly wrote: »
    I was being sarcastic!

    Shocking to think that some people really think that way...Actually want to tax elderly people out of the homes they built and paid for

    Oh I know, as was I. There is a debate to be had on the subject but I've not come across anyone who wants to tax the elderly out of their homes, that would be beyond wrong imo.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #320
    Fr_Fitzexactly
    Site Banned Posts: 85 ✭✭Fr_Fitzexactly


    JRant wrote: »

    Oh I know, as was I. There is a debate to be had on the subject but I've not come across anyone who wants to tax the elderly out of their homes, that would be beyond wrong imo.

    There is no debate to be had on the subject as the idea itself shouldn't be entertained for a single millisecond. There are such people in this world, they might not say it that blunt and they'll veil their greedy motives with pseudo-intellectual economic reasoning but the end result is the same. I'm sure it happens already in the US and UK, what pensioner can afford $5000+ property tax or £2500+ council tax without savings?


  • Options
    #321
    mccarthy37
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 646 ✭✭✭mccarthy37


    Three Seasons wrote: »
    You aren't listening to the answers you are given. If you have a problem with the logic of the answers then address that. You are just ignoring the answers and spouting off the same nonsense.

    Once again I ask, why should mortgage holders be allowed to break their contract when the counterparty has done nothing against the terms and conditions if the contract.

    Banks aren't responsible for maintaining full employment in an economy so you have a job. You can't blame the banks for not having a job. If you could you could also blame mortgage buyers for causing unemployment.
    So why the Fcuk should we have to bail them out.
    Shouldn't the banks get hauled up before the courts and made repay their debt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    JRant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,364 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Fr_Fitzexactly wrote: »
    There is no debate to be had on the subject as the idea itself shouldn't be entertained for a single millisecond. There are such people in this world, they might not say it that blunt and they'll veil their greedy motives with pseudo-intellectual economic reasoning but the end result is the same. I'm sure it happens already in the US and UK, what pensioner can afford + property tax or + council tax without savings?

    I'm talking about a debate on the transfer of wealth that occurred during the boom, not taxing pensioners till they lose their home, just to be clear.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #323
    Three Seasons
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Three Seasons


    mccarthy37 wrote: »
    So why the Fcuk should we have to bail them out.
    Shouldn't the banks get hauled up before the courts and made repay their debt.

    We shouldn't simple as that. We voted in the government so we have to blame the electorate.

    Regardless of the bail out that doesn't change the terms and conditions of an independent contract.


  • Options
    #324
    lima
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    House repossession rate are far too low - I agree.

    I am waiting here for the glut or repossessions to happen so that I can get my hands on a decent property for a good price.

    I feel no guilt if families etc. get kicked out of their homes. Not my problem where they go to. I just want to purchase a house.

    Fingers crossed it will happen soon.


  • Options
    #325
    Three Seasons
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 548 ✭✭✭Three Seasons


    lima wrote: »
    House repossession rate are far too low - I agree.

    I am waiting here for the glut or repossessions to happen so that I can get my hands on a decent property for a good price.

    I feel no guilt if families etc. get kicked out of their homes. Not my problem where they go to. I just want to purchase a house.

    Fingers crossed it will happen soon.

    They'll rent somewhere cheaper and more affordable most likely.


  • Options
    #326
    mccarthy37
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 646 ✭✭✭mccarthy37


    lima wrote: »
    House repossession rate are far too low - I agree.

    I am waiting here for the glut or repossessions to happen so that I can get my hands on a decent property for a good price.

    I feel no guilt if families etc. get kicked out of their homes. Not my problem where they go to. I just want to purchase a house.

    Fingers crossed it will happen soon.

    Are you trolling or are you just one of the so called nice Irish people that make me feel so ashamed to be Irish. You disgust me.


  • Options
    #327
    lima
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    mccarthy37 wrote: »
    Are you trolling or are you just one of the so called nice Irish people that make me feel so ashamed to be Irish. You disgust me.

    I am Irish but not one of those who bought a house who is looking for a bailout from their own adult financial decision.


  • Options
    #328
    Hoop66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,285 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    I'd like to see some analysis of what banks stand to lose from unpaid mortgage vs what they stand to lose trying to sell reposessed properties.

    I mean, I know they will come after you for the difference, but realistically how much of that are they going to get back? Plus, how much are they losing with an unsold property on their books.

    It wouldn't surprise me to find that they're happy to accept a certain level of mortgage default.


  • Options
    #329
    mccarthy37
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 646 ✭✭✭mccarthy37


    lima wrote: »
    I am Irish but not one of those who bought a house who is looking for a bailout from their own adult financial decision.

    You are an adult oink.


  • Options
    #330
    IM0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    mccarthy37 wrote: »
    Are you trolling or are you just one of the so called nice Irish people that make me feel so ashamed to be Irish. You disgust me.

    you have to remember that there were lots of people that decided not to give in to the madness and instead wait for the market to settle, it is now coming into that time

    but noew the gamble is swinging the other way, do they buy now or wait for it to fall further, decisions decisions :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    IM0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    mccarthy37 wrote: »
    You are an adult oink.

    whats ths oink you speak of?


Advertisement
Advertisement