Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Glut of repossessed houses could depress prices ‘by up to 25%’

Options
12467…100

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    pburns wrote: »
    Given that rents are so high at the moment the fact that this income only pays HALF the mortgage indicates that they got in way over their heads.

    Yes, yes, obviously their own silly fault that with two well-paid full-time professional jobs and a shining career future they bought a comfortable apartment when prices were high.

    Goodness, this thread is proving a treasury for my ignore-list collection, which I base on unkindness.


  • Options
    #93
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    gaius c wrote: »
    Sure but if apartment stock is being withheld, single folk in their 20's or young couples will houseshare and compete with families for the limited housing stock, instead of living in apartments like they do in every other European country.

    It's not difficult to find the empty apartment blocks in Dublin. My personal favourite is Clancy Quay in Islandbridge.

    You cannot compare continental apartment living with Irish apartment living surely? You're also agreeing with my point that certain types of properties are in short supply (3/4 bed houses)


    gaius c wrote: »
    Only if the population of Dublin city centre increased in that time and available sources indicate that it's the commuter belt that saw population growth, not the city centre. 16,000 apartments is a lot of supply. It's twice the max peak of Daft rental supply for the entire of Dublin city (back in 2008).
    Not only that though. Come on now. People are getting older and starting families and need more space so look for houses rather than apartments.


  • Options
    #94
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    You're being very stubborn here. If I was a 20 something working in the city centre, I'd much rather live in the city centre than out in a houseshare in Rathfarnham or Glasnevin. The fact that apartments are vacant mean that option is not really open so talking of shortages in particular sectors is moot when the shortage is entirely artificial.


  • Options
    #95
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    gaius c wrote: »
    Sure but if apartment stock is being withheld, single folk in their 20's or young couples will houseshare and compete with families for the limited housing stock, instead of living in apartments like they do in every other European country.

    It's not difficult to find the empty apartment blocks in Dublin. My personal favourite is Clancy Quay in Islandbridge.

    Yeah I don't understand the Irish dislike towards Apartments


  • Options
    #96
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    lima wrote: »
    Yeah I don't understand the Irish dislike towards Apartments

    I think it's because of the quality of apartments. Poky, cardboardy, all show, a bit like the currently dominant Irish personality.

    I used to know people who lived in flats behind and above shops in Grafton Street and Nassau Street and O'Connell Street and Baggot Street in the 1960s - nice, comfy places, and great for the shopkeepers to have someone they trusted living there and being there overnight and at weekends. All those apartments seem to be empty or stacked with cardboard boxes now, such a shame.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    gaius c wrote: »
    You're being very stubborn here. If I was a 20 something working in the city centre, I'd much rather live in the city centre than out in a houseshare in Rathfarnham or Glasnevin. The fact that apartments are vacant mean that option is not really open so talking of shortages in particular sectors is moot when the shortage is entirely artificial.

    There are more then people aged 20 something looking for homes. WHy are you being so specific? 20 somethings I'm sure are happy to live in apts but what about young families?
    lima wrote: »
    Yeah I don't understand the Irish dislike towards Apartments

    Most are poorly designed apartments, poorly designed complexes (no amenities or spaces) and poorly run by uninterested owners. Completely unlike most European apartment complexes


  • Options
    #98
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Are you being deliberately obtuse? Taking apartments out of the supply means that everybody has to compete for houses instead.


  • Options
    #99
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    gaius c wrote: »
    Are you being deliberately obtuse? Taking apartments out of the supply means that everybody has to compete for houses instead.

    What are you talking about. We've been talking about a shortage of 3/4 bed homes and you keep saying there's no property shortage. Well I beg to differ. Not everyone wants or can take an apartment for lots of reasons. To dismiss this as some sort of "you'll take what you're given" is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #100
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    What are you talking about. We've been talking about a shortage of 3/4 bed homes and you keep saying there's no property shortage. Well I beg to differ. Not everyone wants or can take an apartment for lots of reasons. To dismiss this as some sort of "you'll take what you're given" is ridiculous.

    Maybe I'm obtuse too. There are several three- and four-bed semis and terrace houses for sale around where I live. There doesn't seem to be any mad rush for them.

    The way things are at the moment, there's a layer of people with plenty money, and some of these are buying for cash.
    There's another layer of people just getting by, with their fingers crossed, being careful, with every penny and five places for it to go.
    And there's a layer of people who are in absolute desperation.


  • Options
    #101
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Tigerandahalf wrote: »
    Lot of lads hoping to pick up a bargain and clearly hoping that repossessions will aid that. Just be careful you dont get a stone put through the window or worse when you move into your bargain buy. Some people may resort to that.

    That is such an Irish trait. Where does all this bitterness and anger and begrudery come from? It was even there during the bubble.

    Regarding apartment in Dublin city centre, I think in places like Temple Bar or thereabouts, I can see the advantages to owning one. But I think you'd have to spend a fortune ripping the inside apart and being really creative with the space to make them properly liveable.

    There's a website I go to sometimes (can't remember the name) where people post pictures of their New York studios and how they use the limited space efficiently to make them cute. I think it would be possible to do the same with some Dublin apartments.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    onedmc
    Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭onedmc


    They are not even attempting to repossess buy to let that aren't paying the mortgage but collecting the rent.


  • Options
    #103
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    What are you talking about. We've been talking about a shortage of 3/4 bed homes and you keep saying there's no property shortage. Well I beg to differ. Not everyone wants or can take an apartment for lots of reasons. To dismiss this as some sort of "you'll take what you're given" is ridiculous.

    For the fifth time...
    Indeed, there are lots of people who won't or can't live in apartments. However, there are people who will.

    You with me this far?

    The supply of apartments in Dublin is being artificially restricted with empty blocks throughout the city so those people who would happily live in apartments end up competing with people who would prefer houses for the simple reason that the supply of apartments is being interfered with giving them no choice but to look at houses.


  • Options
    #104
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    Maybe I'm obtuse too. There are several three- and four-bed semis and terrace houses for sale around where I live. There doesn't seem to be any mad rush for them.

    The way things are at the moment, there's a layer of people with plenty money, and some of these are buying for cash.
    There's another layer of people just getting by, with their fingers crossed, being careful, with every penny and five places for it to go.
    And there's a layer of people who are in absolute desperation.

    Are they occupied or vacant though?


  • Options
    #105
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    gaius c wrote: »
    For the fifth time...
    Indeed, there are lots of people who won't or can't live in apartments. However, there are people who will.

    You with me this far?

    The supply of apartments in Dublin is being artificially restricted with empty blocks throughout the city so those people who would happily live in apartments end up competing with people who would prefer houses for the simple reason that the supply of apartments is being interfered with giving them no choice but to look at houses.

    Many of those "blocks" you speak of are unfinished complexes. I for one would like those apartments to be made available but it's not my fault they aren't. I'm totally lost on your point now by the way.


  • Options
    #106
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,493 ✭✭✭Villa05


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    "Anecdotal evidence from bankers" doesn't really do it for me to be honest. He's as good a spinner as the rest. I would agree with him though on strategic default not being a victimless crime but I'd also add that by repossessing property the burden of rehousing such a family would again fall on the state. Surely a better option where possible would be for the bank to share some of the burden or take an equity stake in the property where by the owners continue to live while paying they portion of the debt and the house is sold in say 20years with the bank getting back their cut. I'll add for those that cannot/will no read that I refer solely to PDH/PPR properties.

    I'd also agree with Colm here:
    The elephant in the room
    and for the 24,000 PPR's 2 years or more in arrears, your solution would be.............

    The cost of rehousing will not fall on the state or will be considerably reduced where
    1. one party paying the mortgage contract is in employment, 93%*
    2. all parties paying the mortgage contract are in employment 68%*
    3. the owner has the means to pay the mortgage but choose not to.

    I know there may be other solutions for the first 2 as you say the bank take a stake in the house and park that portion for a period of time.

    However what about people who are in situation 2 and 3 What is your solution in these cases?

    Where all parties to the mortgage are unemployed and the mortgage is completely unsustainable. Do you have a solution other than repossession and write off the remaining debt?

    What is your proposed solution for buy to lets in arrears?


    * Figures for unemployment amongst mortgaged households in arrears as of Quarter 1 2012 (figures are from a survey of 2,000 households)

    http://www.centralbank.ie/publications/documents/macro-financial%20review%202012.2.pdf
    thanks to the good people on thepropertypin.com

    PS I'd love to get 3 examples of spin from Colm McCarthy - PM if you can get examples so as to avoid derailing the thread


  • Options
    #107
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    I'm sorry I have little or no idea what a lot of this ^^^^ post means. How and ever. In relation to BTL's (as I've already stated) we should repossess them first if the mortgages are unworkable for the people involved.

    If there are strategic defaulters then these should be pursued for repayment or if necessary repossession since they can but wont pay. I think that's your point 3 answered anyway.

    Where all parties are unemployed and there is no real solution then repossession may have to happen unfortunately.

    My concern is with those who cannot afford to pay but have been trying and if they were given breathing room or a proper restructuring of their debt could recover to repay the debt and contribute to the economy. I dont think the banks have done enough to help these PPR/PDH families/people. And thankfully the government seem to agree:
    The Government is set to increase pressure on banks to deal with the mortgage arrears crisis.
    It confirmed it will outline plans this week to set quarterly targets for banks to deal with mortgage arrears on their books.
    Latest figures show over €17 billion worth of mortgages are in arrears of 90 days or more with nearly €5 billion of this in arrears for two years.
    However, ministers have insisted that repossessions of family homes will only take place in a minority of cases and only as a last resort in cases of extreme financial stress.
    The main banks will be given clear targets to start reducing the levels of outstanding mortgage debt.
    For most people in mortgage distress this will mean re-negotiating new mortgage terms with some people getting part of their loans either 'warehoused' or written down in cases of genuine financial difficulty.
    Ministers insist that the new plan, worked out with the Central Bank, will place the emphasis on restructuring as the main way of resolving distressed mortgages.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0310/375958-mortgage-property-debts/

    Maybe sanity can prevail.

    Michael Noonan:
    ''You could not have 100,000 families in a small country like Ireland who are not participating in the growth of the country, and they can not participate because they are burdened with debt,'


  • Options
    #108
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    onedmc wrote: »
    They are not even attempting to repossess buy to let that aren't paying the mortgage but collecting the rent.

    Citation?


  • Options
    #109
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    I'm sorry I have little or no idea what a lot of this ^^^^ post means.

    Clever-ish gambit to avoid debating points made and instead respond with your own strawman argument but you're over-using it now.
    ''You could not have 100,000 families in a small country like Ireland who are not participating in the growth of the country, and they can not participate because they are burdened with debt,'
    Indeed, the new personal insolvency laws will allow them to lose the long-term debt after a period of time (could be as low as 3 years) but the price they pay is that they must lose the asset the loan is secured against.

    It's a pretty good deal tbf.


  • Options
    #110
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    gaius c wrote: »
    Clever-ish gambit to avoid debating points made and instead respond with your own strawman argument but you're over-using it now.
    I thought I made a decent attempt to answer to be fair.

    gaius c wrote: »
    Indeed, the new personal insolvency laws will allow them to lose the long-term debt after a period of time (could be as low as 3 years) but the price they pay is that they must lose the asset the loan is secured against.

    It's a pretty good deal tbf.

    I think the idea of the governments proposals is that were possible and practicable people will get to keep there PPR/PDH's.


  • Options
    #111
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Interesting programme on RTE1 TV now about 1881 repossession.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    Interesting programme on RTE1 TV now about 1881 repossession.

    Should be good I'm sure but I hope you're not saying that today's evictions/repossessions are comparable to the famine evictions.


  • Options
    #113
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    I thought I made a decent attempt to answer to be fair.




    I think the idea of the governments proposals is that were possible and practicable people will get to keep there PPR/PDH's.

    Why should they if their sensible neighbours are paying theirs in full?


  • Options
    #114
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    gaius c wrote: »
    Why should they if their sensible neighbours are paying theirs in full?

    Because if they have tried to repay the mortgage until a point were bills and such got in the way (unlike strategic defaulters) and could again be able to pay if given the right opportunity and the right plan by the bank (whom many I suspect are not doing enough to make a deal good enough for all parties) is that not a good thing?

    There are a number of reasons I think that this is better than out and out repossession.

    1. They dont need rehousing, you don't cause further trauma to an already extremely stressed family and you allow them to repay the debt owed.
    2. They will return quicker to being a contributor to the economy rather than potentially becoming an even greater burden on the tax payer
    3. The bank gets some or all of their money back (whether through a full repayment of the mortgage by the owner or a combined debt for equity and part payment of mortgage).

    Do you think we should not look at every option before we push for repossession? Again not everyone in arrears is enjoying themselves at the tax payers expense.


  • Options
    #115
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Do you think tenants who can't afford their rent should be given "the right plan" by their landlord or do you think that they should move and find a house they can afford?

    Only 7% of mortgage arrears have seen the loss of all incomes in the household thus they don't need to be re-housed at state expense. They will simply rent somewhere that they can afford.


  • Options
    #116
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    gaius c wrote: »
    Do you think tenants who can't afford their rent should be given "the right plan" by their landlord or do you think that they should move and find a house they can afford?

    Only 7% of mortgage arrears have seen the loss of all incomes in the household thus they don't need to be re-housed at state expense. They will simply rent somewhere that they can afford.

    Tenents can move without substantial loss. I think you've incorrectly phrased the 7% statement but I presume you mean 93% don't need state housing but you assume that those evicted are no longer on the hook for the debt but that power currently rests with the banks so even after repossession and sale the bank can pursue the debtor for the remaining debt. Also we don't know what % of the 93% with income have sufficient income to rent a property even after eviction. Maybe ever after repossession they still cannot afford a rental property.

    Or maybe you'd like to send them all to connacht?


  • Options
    #117
    StillWaters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    gaius c wrote: »
    Do you think tenants who can't afford their rent should be given "the right plan" by their landlord or do you think that they should move and find a house they can afford?

    Only 7% of mortgage arrears have seen the loss of all incomes in the household thus they don't need to be re-housed at state expense. They will simply rent somewhere that they can afford.
    Do you really believe that people who have suffered a serious cut in income and are in arrears, but paying something, should not have some form of warehousing?


  • Options
    #118
    Galego
    Registered Users Posts: 1,231 ✭✭✭Galego


    Did I hear today on the news that the government is going to announce its strategy for banks to tackle mortgage in arrears this week?

    Foreign banks will be the first ones to move on with repossessions. Bank of Ulster has already announced its intentions to tackle those non-performing LTBs and strategic defaulters. It seems to make sense for everyone who wants to see some economic recovery in this country or at least to have the chance of recovery.

    The new solvency law should (hopefully) also help matters.


  • Options
    #119
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    Tenents can move without substantial loss.

    What the hell does that even mean?

    Couple A & B both live next door.
    Couple A bought mortgaged a property.
    Couple B rented a property.
    Both wives worked in the same factory but got let go and now each couple can only afford 60% of their respective mortgage repayments/rent.

    In your twisted view of the world:
    Couple A stay in their house.
    Couple B will have to rent in a cheaper location or go to social housing.


  • Options
    #120
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,118 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    If you were in the line for a forced repossession would you not be be better to give up your house now rather than add to your negative equity bill.
    I presume if your house is repossessed your liable for the legal costs the lender incurred in getting to that point?

    I don't think anybody wants repossessions least of all mortgage lenders as it's a very expensive and long process.

    It'll be interesting to see how many of these Btl's surrender than have to be forced when push comes to shove.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    Tenents can move without substantial loss. I think you've incorrectly phrased the 7% statement but I presume you mean 93% don't need state housing but you assume that those evicted are no longer on the hook for the debt but that power currently rests with the banks so even after repossession and sale the bank can pursue the debtor for the remaining debt. Also we don't know what % of the 93% with income have sufficient income to rent a property even after eviction. Maybe ever after repossession they still cannot afford a rental property.

    Or maybe you'd like to send them all to connacht?

    Then they can avail of social housing like everybody else who can't afford to rent.

    You're just espousing discrimination in favour of folks who have a mortgage and against those who rent and the sooner you realise your bias, the better.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement