Repossession of homes: what's the big deal?

jr22 · 06-07-2013 09:54PM

100% agree.

JimiTime · 07-07-2013 10:06PM

jr22 wrote: »

Great idea. If you can't beat the bankers/politicians/developers then join them, is it? :rolleyes:

Lets just say, if someone was raping me, I'd ignore the people telling me I should pay for the lube.

The safeguards should be that financial simpletons like yourself be given a Henry Hippo account and a calculator.

Ok, i think its been established that you're annoyed about not being able to capitalise on families losing their homes yet, but I hope that you may see the real issues at some point, rather than this tunnel visioned approach you currently have.

Anyway. Regardless of how unpleasent you have been, I truly hope you find some happiness in the home you eventually buy, and that it is not attained on the back of someone elses misery.

JimiTime · 07-07-2013 10:13PM

cock robin wrote: »

The country is in the state its in because people borrowed money that they cannot now repay. There are some folk that I know that are in serious arrears and yet they have at least one holiday per year, a nice motor and a social life. Now don't get me wrong I am just commenting on those people that are within my social group and am in no way judging anyone. In fairness I really don't give a bollix But they whine on about banks and negative equity and suddenly they're all financial experts. Its a pity they didn't have such financial acumen when they borrowed shed loads of money based on one good income and a part time job in Spar or whatever. What gives anyone the right to force their neighbor to surrender a percentage of their dwindling income to fund the life style of these cretins. If you cannot afford the mortage then you can no longer remain in that home. So move or pay. Don't blame the Germans, the Goverment or the bank. You took the wonga blame yourself cos its your fault. Champagne taste lemonade money:pac::pac: I understand that many of you will disagree. But do you know what I don't give a fcuk. I am not getting into a debate about it. That is the reality of our current situation. If there are over "300,000" in arrears why are there not at least half that amount at these many marches. The future of our country was sacrificed by the badge brigade, those that had to have the latest beemer the latest nikes. I mean you had to cross the Sahara on a camel to compete with the holidays the fcukers took. Pay up shut up or move on, you whinging greedy creptaurs.

What all you folk fail to grasp, is that the tab will be picked up either way. Like I mentioned earlier, it will be a choice of the bank being on the receiving end of a 300,000 default, or working out a solution which means a forgiveness of X amount, say 100,000, and them getting paid back for 200,000.

Also, I can tell you, the people I know in mortgage trouble are nothing like those you know. A holiday is a pipe dream at this point in their lives.

shruikan2553 · 07-07-2013 10:19PM

JimiTime wrote: »

If you lose your job, and cant pay your rent, you get rent allowance from the government.

Banks gambled and stoked the fires in this bubble, and the powers that be also stoked the fires. Then when it all went pear shaped, they were bailed out to the tune of billions, walked away with golden handshakes and golden pensions while others were burdened with the 80 billion as well as having their homes come into the crosshair. Some people have a bit of an issue with it, as there is a distinct lack of accountablity for those mainly responsible as well as continued reward, while joe bloggs is being told its all his fault the dosey tw@t.

One can only hope that ignorant morons don't win the day.

Where in the contract does it say that if the banks go down but are bailed out by the government that you no longer have to pay?

I am going to guess that there isnt a part, it is here is the money and you pay it back. The banks could of started gangs ging around killing people on the streets after sunset but it doesnt change the fact that people made an agreement and now think that because the deal isnt as good for them as it was they can back out.

There are people being rewarded by getting to live in a house that should of been repossessed months ago.

jr22 · 07-07-2013 10:50PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Lets just say, if someone was raping me, I'd ignore the people telling me I should pay for the lube.

JimiTime wrote: »

What all you folk fail to grasp, is that the tab will be picked up either way. Like I mentioned earlier, it will be a choice of the bank being on the receiving end of a 300,000 default, or working out a solution which means a forgiveness of X amount, say 100,000, and them getting paid back for 200,000.

the bank = the taxpayer

That's right. That means responsible families and their children will be paying for the privilege of forgiving the mistakes of greedy simpletons like yourself for the next couple of centuries.

Anyone who is trying to dodge paying their mortgage now and wants to land their debt on other people should be turfed out of their house. It is that simple.

Nate--IRL-- · 07-07-2013 10:55PM

JimiTime wrote: »

What all you folk fail to grasp, is that the tab will be picked up either way. Like I mentioned earlier, it will be a choice of the bank being on the receiving end of a 300,000 default, or working out a solution which means a forgiveness of X amount, say 100,000, and them getting paid back for 200,000.

Not quite - Bank is on the receiving end of a 300,000 default, repossess house, sells it for 200,000. The last 100,000 can be paid off by working out a solution with the mortgage holder.

Nate

JimiTime · 08-07-2013 01:37AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Where in the contract does it say that if the banks go down but are bailed out by the government that you no longer have to pay?

I am going to guess that there isnt a part, it is here is the money and you pay it back. The banks could of started gangs ging around killing people on the streets after sunset but it doesnt change the fact that people made an agreement and now think that because the deal isnt as good for them as it was they can back out.

There are people being rewarded by getting to live in a house that should of been repossessed months ago.

Words simply fail in the face of such idiocy.

JimiTime · 08-07-2013 01:47AM

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Not quite - Bank is on the receiving end of a 300,000 default, repossess house, sells it for 200,000. The last 100,000 can be paid off by working out a solution with the mortgage holder.

Nate

A smart person wouldn't do that though. They'd give the bank the option of a deal, or they'd default. Going to Britain for example, would also mean that they'd be completely free of the debt in a year and a half. If its good for the goose and all that.

JimiTime · 08-07-2013 01:58AM

jr22 wrote: »

the bank = the taxpayer

That's right. That means responsible families and their children will be paying for the privilege of forgiving the mistakes of greedy simpletons like yourself for the next couple of centuries.

Greedy Simpleton

Again, your misplaced anger and frustration at not seeing families being chucked out of their homes so that you can capitalise is founded upon the rather misguided concept that the tax payer will somehow be saved money. Whether families are chucked out of their homes or not, there is economic, social and monetary consequences. The taxpayer will be paying for this mortgage crisis whatever happens. It is my humble opinion, that a smarter, conscientious, pragmatic and less ignorant approach than your 'Get the greedy simpleton, idiot, dim, gambling, gombeen, gosh1tes, out on their @rses', will be required

jr22 · 08-07-2013 08:44AM

Jimi, you represent everything that is wrong with the country.

Padkir · 08-07-2013 10:51AM

Reading a thread has rarely made me so annoyed...

I'm sick to the teeth of people complaining that it's all the Bank / Government (anyone except themselves) fault that they got a big mortgage that wasn't sustainable. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what you can afford to pay, while keeping some safety money in reserve to deal with issues like losing their jobs, having a child, getting sick for an extended period, etc. There are people out there who wouldn't be able to pay their mortgage if they were off work for 2/3 weeks. Now who's poor planning is that? I'm afraid you can't blame the banks for that one.

I also hate the fact that people are saying they were conned and duped into it by all the hype. Fair enough, there was a lot of hype but you had to use common sense. My own father (a man in his 50s who left school after his Inter Cert), said on countless occasions in 2005/2006 that it was never going to last, that people were getting up to their eyes in debt and where would they be when things inevitably turned sour. Greed is what made people take on large mortgages that they couldn't afford, nothing else.

In saying that, some blame / risk has to be attached to the banks. I agree with repossessions if you fail to make any effort to come to an agreement with the banks over the payback period or levels of payments, etc. As someone said previously, if you can't pay your rent you will be evicted; why should it be any different with a mortgage. Everyone knows that if a loan is got on the back of assets and you can't pay that loan back, the lender takes those assets. No sob stories that it's a family home, etc. You made a decision as a *responsible* adult, so you get the rights and responsibilities that come with it.

There is one thing I do take exception to though, and that is the fact that if the bank take your house, that should be it. The difference in the market value and the value left on the mortgage should be the bank's loss. I can't understand how it is allowed that they can then go after the remaining money and I understand that this is the main reason why people can't downgrade. It is something which needs to change imo. This would mean that banks wouldn't go for a repossession only in extreme circumstances as they know they'll be taking a big hit in most cases, so it may make them more eager to come up with an alternative solution.

And for full transparency, I'm 23 now so was far too young to have any decisions of buying houses / renting during the boom but that does not mean that I can't see that people should have had the cop on to pay what they could afford.

IvySlayer · 08-07-2013 11:07AM

Yes, I'm sick of hearing people banging on about helping peoples mortgages, the Government shouldn't. How can people bash the banks when they can't pay back their own loans? If you can't pay your mortgage it's bye bye house.

HansHolzel · 08-07-2013 11:09AM

There is also a post-feminist angle to ridiculous mortgages.

How many fellas folded to pressure from the loved one to get on the ladder at any cost, once the marriage proposal had been accepted?

BurnsCarpenter · 08-07-2013 11:24AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Greedy Simpleton Again, your misplaced anger and frustration at not seeing families being chucked out of their homes so that you can capitalise is founded upon the rather misguided concept that the tax payer will somehow be saved money. Whether families are chucked out of their homes or not, there is economic, social and monetary consequences. The taxpayer will be paying for this mortgage crisis whatever happens. It is my humble opinion, that a smarter, conscientious, pragmatic and less ignorant approach than your 'Get the greedy simpleton, idiot, dim, gambling, gombeen, gosh1tes, out on their @rses', will be required

I have plenty of friends who bought modest houses and were driven more by fear of never being able to buy a house, rather than "keeping up with the Joneses".

However, there are plenty of gobsheens who bought massive houses, stretching themselves in the process, or bought investment properties trying to get rich, who are now hoping to be able to keep these assets without paying for them. That is, not paying the banks = taxpayers = us.

I think somebody who in negative equity who is prepared to give up the property should be treated fairly (debt forgiveness for those genuinely in need). I have no sympathy for anyone who feels they should be entitled to keep the property because it's the "family home", at the taxpayer's expense.

If we allow this to happen it will be a massive injustice for people who have already bailed out banks and bondholders.

bnt · 08-07-2013 11:40AM

IvySlayer wrote: »

Yes, I'm sick of hearing people banging on about helping peoples mortgages, the Government shouldn't. How can people bash the banks when they can't pay back their own loans? If you can't pay your mortgage it's bye bye house.

But it's not "bye bye house", because repossessions aren't happening anything like as often as they could be happening. Why not? Because the banks don't want the houses. It would be a hassle to repossess, and they are likely to lose on the deal.

It's all about the accounting: as long as a mortgage is outstanding - arrears or not - that mortgage is an asset on their balance sheet. Its value in € is unambiguous. The mortgage can even be sold to another financial institution, which is how the whole "mortgage-backed security" debacle came about in the US. A mortgage on the books is a known quantity, and it makes them money as long as it's paid. If it goes in to arrears, that's less of a financial disaster for the bank than it is for the borrower.

But if the bank takes the house and discharges the mortgage, it's exchanged an asset of known value for an asset of uncertain value. It has to resell the house - probably at a loss, since the mortgage was too large and the property was overvalued. It would have to be worth their while e.g. huge arrears with little chance of a restructuring deal.

tl;dr: the bank repossession process suits the banks in good times, because they can resell the house, maybe even make money on the deal. In these bad times, with properties so seriously overvalued, they will make a loss, so why should they bother to repossess?

Ray Palmer · 08-07-2013 12:00PM

bnt wrote: »

But it's not "bye bye house", because repossessions aren't happening anything like as often as they could be happening. Why not? Because the banks don't want the houses. It would be a hassle to repossess, and they are likely to lose on the deal.

Except that is not true and wild speculation.

The banks didn't repossess houses because

1) The law made it pretty much impossible and expensive
2) The public opinion on repossessions is very negative
3) The government didn't want for reason 2
4) The system in Ireland meant the debts followed the home purchaser

Now your arguments for why the banks don't want to do it could possibly be true. Except it if the banks were thinking that way they would also consider that by not repossessing houses would mean people would stop paying. In Ireland the banking system meant that when you repossess a house you do not write off the loan amount as the person still owed the money and would still be on the books for that. This last point kind of points out your whole theory is flawed and that is ignoring the first 3 mentioned.

Frank Black · 08-07-2013 12:04PM

HansHolzel wrote: »

There is also a post-feminist angle to ridiculous mortgages.

How many fellas folded to pressure from the loved one to get on the ladder at any cost, once the marriage proposal had been accepted?

Your 'theory' sounds more pre-feminist to me.

In answer to your question - I'm going to guess 'four'?.

jr22 · 08-07-2013 12:07PM

Good article that covers a lot of what's been mentioned here and more.

http://qz.com/50615/welcome-to-ireland-where-house-payments-are-optional-apparently/

HansHolzel · 08-07-2013 12:41PM

Frank Black wrote: »

Your 'theory' sounds more pre-feminist to me.

In answer to your question - I'm going to guess 'four'?.

Single, are you? Or under category of "other"?

ScumLord · 08-07-2013 01:26PM

Padkir wrote: »

I'm sick to the teeth of people complaining that it's all the Bank / Government (anyone except themselves) fault that they got a big mortgage that wasn't sustainable. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what you can afford to pay,

Well if it doesn't take a genius why did the banks lend out money to people they must have known couldn't pay it back? They do checks don't they? They knew what the people were earning, where they earned it and what state the own finances were in.

If the bankers with all their knowledge couldn't see the potential problems how can you expect the ordinary people too?

wicklowstevo · 08-07-2013 01:51PM

Ya I got to say lots of people were greedy and took huge loans from incompetent and greedy bankers . but they weren't forced to do it, any one who couldn't see the property bubble burst seems like a bit of a fool to me .

It does seem unfair that some one who was stupid and greedy and wanted the big house and flash car and now gets to keep it all while I pay through the nose for something I didn't get. If you were dumb enough to waste all your money during the boom and bought a big house that you couldn't afford then yes you should lose it,

Stupidity is no excuse, and its time people in this country started to take personal responsibility for what they have done instead of blaming every one but them self

BattleCorp · 08-07-2013 02:22PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Well if it doesn't take a genius why did the banks lend out money to people they must have known couldn't pay it back? They do checks don't they? They knew what the people were earning, where they earned it and what state the own finances were in.

If the bankers with all their knowledge couldn't see the potential problems how can you expect the ordinary people too?

There's a lot of criticism about banks giving out money that they knew people couldn't pay back. I don't think that's true in the majority of cases.

The vast majority of people could pay back their mortgage, once they still had their job. When they lost their jobs, that's where the problems really started.

Staying in employment is key to being able to pay your mortgage.

As far as I'm aware, the banks normally didn't give mortgages to unemployed people back then. They only gave them to people who had a job and thus, the ability to pay back the money.

jester77 · 08-07-2013 02:37PM

ScumLord wrote: »

If the bankers with all their knowledge couldn't see the potential problems how can you expect the ordinary people too?

Not that hard, all you need is a pen, paper and calculator.

You calculate unemployment of one or both parties, injuries and not being able to work for extended periods/rest of your life, children and child care costs/stay at home mom/dad, educational costs, death of a partner, interest rates over 10% like our parents had, etc, etc.

Most of these very likely to happen over the 25-35 years of a mortgage. If you cannot meet the repayments during those circumstances then you can't afford the mortgage. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out, the calculator will do the maths for you.

Wompa1 · 08-07-2013 02:49PM

Some suggested if homes were taken by the banks then it would lead to a demand for rental properties which would lead to rent going up. But surely within a year or two the price of rental properties would go down as the savvy types would buy up the properties and rent them...Then there would be a surplus of rental properties. Also the price to buy a home would come down, which might attract foreigners to move to Ireland or attract first time buyers.

Rent in Galway seems to have barely budged through out the collapse.

ScumLord · 08-07-2013 03:09PM

jester77 wrote: »

Not that hard, all you need is a pen, paper and calculator.

You calculate unemployment of one or both parties, injuries and not being able to work for extended periods/rest of your life, children and child care costs/stay at home mom/dad, educational costs, death of a partner, interest rates over 10% like our parents had, etc, etc.

Most of these very likely to happen over the 25-35 years of a mortgage. If you cannot meet the repayments during those circumstances then you can't afford the mortgage. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out, the calculator will do the maths for you.

Do the banks not do this calculation? At the end of the day they need to ensure they're going to get their money back. They didn't just hand out loans because they liked the look of the person sitting in front of them, or did they?

The bank had access to the peoples finances, they also had a better knowledge of the consequences of 100% loans and giving hundreds of thousands to 20 year olds.

The banks took gambles on 20 year olds being able to pay back loans worth 100,000s. I wouldn't give a 20 year old the loan of €100 never mind enough to buy an overpriced house, that's common sense. The banks were doing short term gambling on the property market, the majority of people were just trying to get a home to live in and were convinced into overpaying because they were under the impression their house would only increase in value.

jester77 · 08-07-2013 03:17PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Do the banks not do this calculation? At the end of the day they need to ensure they're going to get their money back. They didn't just hand out loans because they liked the look of the person sitting in front of them, or did they?

The bank had access to the peoples finances, they also had a better knowledge of the consequences of 100% loans and giving hundreds of thousands to 20 year olds.

The banks took gambles on 20 year olds being able to pay back loans worth 100,000s. I wouldn't give a 20 year old the loan of €100 never mind enough to buy an overpriced house, that's common sense. The banks were doing short term gambling on the property market, the majority of people were just trying to get a home to live in and were convinced into overpaying because they were under the impression their house would only increase in value.

The onus is ultimately on the person taking out the loan. When I was getting a mortgage I didn't consider or care what the banks criteria was, I looked out for number one. What would the point be in me taking out a loan that I wouldn't be able to pay back if certain circumstances presented themselves down the line.

Lots of people hoodwinked the banks by pretending they had large deposits or larger earning power (having parents transfer in money, taking out a car loan with a different bank, having their employer alter their salary statements, etc). Not the banks fault in these situations.

Ray Palmer · 08-07-2013 03:35PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Do the banks not do this calculation? At the end of the day they need to ensure they're going to get their money back. They didn't just hand out loans because they liked the look of the person sitting in front of them, or did they?

The bank had access to the peoples finances, they also had a better knowledge of the consequences of 100% loans and giving hundreds of thousands to 20 year olds.

The banks took gambles on 20 year olds being able to pay back loans worth 100,000s. I wouldn't give a 20 year old the loan of €100 never mind enough to buy an overpriced house, that's common sense. The banks were doing short term gambling on the property market, the majority of people were just trying to get a home to live in and were convinced into overpaying because they were under the impression their house would only increase in value.

Except apparently the large portion of those in trouble with their mortgages are older than their 20s-30s

If you know how many people who got 100% mortgages are in trouble why not tell us? There have been a lot of belief out there about what and how people are in trouble.

http://www.thejournal.ie/mortgage-arrears-age-children-866893-Apr2013/

scamalert · 08-07-2013 04:19PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How doesn't it make sense? We've pumped about 100bn into the banks. Us. The taxpayer. That blank cheque from us to the banks is more than the personal debts of probably every distressed homeowner combined. In my view, we owe them nothing further. If we'd never bailed them out I would have a different view, but my position is that these w@nkers still have their massive pay packets and pensions because every ordinary person in this country was forced against their will to pump several million euro apiece into these trainwrecks of industry, and that amount of money most likely covers everyone's personal debts a hundred times over.

Its silly to think that way and who ever developed this idea got burned well i think.Now doesn't matter how many millions or billions government poured into bailing out banks,now what you are trying to say that every person got robbed out of 30-50 thousand of their pockets,US owes trillions to Asia.But i dont see Americans saying omg ive owe 5 million or it was taken from my account :cool: every person pays bills,taxes and new taxes always are created.But every clown with such opinion thinks that he had worked couple years and payed his taxes,that government owes them 30-50 thousand in cash now :pac:
As for people who lost their houses or are in trouble,should thought first when applying for loan 30-40 years ahead,banks were giving loans pretty easy at the time,but if person thought that making average wage with no qualifications taking out loan that was equal to making 30k for ten years without tax and thinking that he will be able to maintain it for at least 20-30 years with growing interest is beyond me.people were doing horde thing at the time so many fell into this trap and nobody likes to blame themselves.

professore · 08-07-2013 04:25PM

jester77 wrote: »

Not that hard, all you need is a pen, paper and calculator.

You calculate unemployment of one or both parties, injuries and not being able to work for extended periods/rest of your life, children and child care costs/stay at home mom/dad, educational costs, death of a partner, interest rates over 10% like our parents had, etc, etc.

Most of these very likely to happen over the 25-35 years of a mortgage. If you cannot meet the repayments during those circumstances then you can't afford the mortgage. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out, the calculator will do the maths for you.

I would argue that 90% of the population, had they done that calculation, would have realised that they couldn't possibly afford any home in Ireland post 2005.

If the banks had done the same calculation they should have come to the same conclusion.

What I don't understand is the parents egging on those young couples to "get on the property ladder" - and there were LOTS of those - surely they knew this was going to happen?

ScumLord · 08-07-2013 04:57PM

jester77 wrote: »

The onus is ultimately on the person taking out the loan.

That's true, it's ultimately the person that's being conned that should know better. So let the banks continue on as they have done and when this happens again we'll just have to give the banks a pat on the bank for pulling the wool over everyone's eyes again.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Except apparently the large portion of those in trouble with their mortgages are older than their 20s-30s

Now, how old old they have been when they bought their house 10 years ago?

professore wrote: »

What I don't understand is the parents egging on those young couples to "get on the property ladder" - and there were LOTS of those - surely they knew this was going to happen?

Because by their own experience it worked for them. People cannot be expected to predict the future, there were few options for people but to buy overpriced houses because they were they only houses available.

Repossession of homes: what's the big deal?

Comments