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
12357…100

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    gaius c wrote: »
    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.

    And (as I said earlier) become a further burden on the state. The bias only exists in your head.


  • Options
    #123
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    Zamboni wrote: »
    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.

    Clap clap. Way to generalise. How about I generalise with a possible scenario too. Couple B moves into similar cheaper rented accomodation and gets on with their lives, she gets a new job within a few weeks and they buy a new house together. Couple A get a tough mortgage deal to continue to stay in house and pay part of mortgage but their disposable income and thus quality of life still shrinks more then couple B.

    I feel for couple B too by the way. No system is going to be perfect but any system which actively prevents unnecessary repossessions of family homes, reduces stress on communities and gives people a chance to get back on their feet has got to be welcome in my mind.

    Without repeating myself over and over again (particularly for those that read individual posts as sound bites rather than part of a whole conversation) can I say I'm saying where it's possible repossession should be the ultimate last resort after everything else has been looked at.


  • Options
    #124
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,513 ✭✭✭Villa05


    I believe that every effort should be made to keep people in their homes, however where do we draw the line. At what point is a mortgage considered unsustainable and repossession with some debt write off, the only solution. This is my call.

    Resdential should be tackled first, Repossessing BTL's first (as I fear will happen because of many peoples attitudes) would deplete funds available for debt write off leaving little available for people in genuine financial distress.

    Resedential
    - In arrears up to 90 days 49,393 (Q3 2012 50,031) Recoverable 10% danger of repossesion
    - In arrears 91 to 180 days 19,073 (Q3 2012 19,814) Recoverable 20% danger of repossesion
    - In arrears over 180 days 75,415 (Q3 2012 71,544)
    of which
    - In arrears 181 to 360 days 24,063 (Q3 2012 24,469) Recoverable 50% danger of repossesion
    - In arrears 261 to 720 days 27,829 (Q3 2012 26,453) Recovery unlikely 80% danger of repossession
    - In arrears over 720 days 23,523 (Q3 2012 20,622) Repossession

    BTL
    I would apply Rent Receivers to all BTL 3 months or more in arrears as some banks are doing,
    I will look at the restructured portion of the problem after work as many of these are in serious danger also


  • Options
    #125
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,119 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Is there stats on where these property's are and what they are?


  • Options
    #126
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Is there stats on where these property's are and what they are?

    It does not break them down that way so we dont know
    http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/ResidentialMortgageArrearsandRepossessionsStatisticsQ42012.aspx


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    Villa05 wrote: »
    I believe that every effort should be made to keep people in their homes, however where do we draw the line. At what point is a mortgage considered unsustainable and repossession with some debt write off, the only solution. This is my call.

    Residential should be tackled first, Repossessing BTL's first (as I fear will happen because of many peoples attitudes) would deplete funds available for debt write off leaving little available for people in genuine financial distress.

    Residential
    - In arrears up to 90 days 49,393 (Q3 2012 50,031) Recoverable 10% danger of repossession
    - In arrears 91 to 180 days 19,073 (Q3 2012 19,814) Recoverable 20% danger of repossession
    - In arrears over 180 days 75,415 (Q3 2012 71,544)
    of which
    - In arrears 181 to 360 days 24,063 (Q3 2012 24,469) Recoverable 50% danger of repossession
    - In arrears 261 to 720 days 27,829 (Q3 2012 26,453) Recovery unlikely 80% danger of repossession
    - In arrears over 720 days 23,523 (Q3 2012 20,622) Repossession

    BTL
    I would apply Rent Receivers to all BTL 3 months or more in arrears as some banks are doing,
    I will look at the restructured portion of the problem after work as many of these are in serious danger also

    I think a lot of what you say here is a good idea. At what point is a mortgage considered unsustainable? That I suppose depends on the mechanisms used to try to restructure the mortgage but if all avenues are looked at (incl. debt for equity) and still no solution would appear to work then repossession may be the only recourse although if repossession occurs I'd like to see a write off of any debt remaining after sale if that amount of debt would saddle the owner with continued overburden. There's no point trying to get blood out of a stone.


  • Options
    #128
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    gaius c wrote: »
    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.

    He/she doesn't understand the hypocrisy of their own posts.
    They want people in mortgage distress to be treated "fairly" at the expense of everyone else.


  • Options
    #129
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    Zamboni wrote: »
    He/she doesn't understand the hypocrisy of their own posts.
    They want people in mortgage distress to be treated "fairly" at the expense of everyone else.

    Again you're over simplifying a complicated situation to suit your own point. Just like your horrendous example.


  • Options
    #130
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    Again you're over simplifying a complicated situation to suit your own point. Just like your horrendous example.

    That simple example demonstrates your preference to borrowers over renters.


  • Options
    #131
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    Zamboni wrote: »
    That simple example demonstrates your preference to borrowers over renters.

    It's simple alright. Simply hypthetical. As in chances are...not. Give me a reasoned arguement and I'll try answer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    And (as I said earlier) become a further burden on the state. The bias only exists in your head.

    Actually they become less of one because the social housing is likely to be cheap. The house that they can't afford, plunging the bank into deeper trouble is not.

    Anyway, those in arrears who will need social housing comprise a minority of the folk in arrears. The majority still have at least some money coming in.


  • Options
    #133
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    gaius c wrote: »
    Actually they become less of one because the social housing is likely to be cheap. The house that they can't afford, plunging the bank into deeper trouble is not.

    Anyway, those in arrears who will need social housing comprise a minority of the folk in arrears. The majority still have at least some money coming in.

    I don't know how you figure that out to be honest because no in depth analysis has been done. We're just speculating. And in fact social housing could lead to more of a shortage depending on the locations affected.


  • Options
    #134
    StillWaters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    gaius c wrote: »

    Actually they become less of one because the social housing is likely to be cheap. The house that they can't afford, plunging the bank into deeper trouble is not.

    Anyway, those in arrears who will need social housing comprise a minority of the folk in arrears. The majority still have at least some money coming in.
    Wrong. The majority will have a housing need, are likely to be families and have suffered a significant decrease in income. There is a very real poverty trap barrier at play here should they enter the private rental sector. That is, it would be beneficial for them to give up work in order to avail of RA. That could be a large draw on the DSP resources.


  • Options
    #135
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,120 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


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

    Convenient timing or what.
    Anyone think there is an attempt to shape public opinion ?
    Lets have a few programs about the Michael Davitt and the land league in the next few weeks for good measure.
    Villa05 wrote: »
    I believe that every effort should be made to keep people in their homes, however where do we draw the line. At what point is a mortgage considered unsustainable and repossession with some debt write off, the only solution. This is my call.

    Resdential should be tackled first, Repossessing BTL's first (as I fear will happen because of many peoples attitudes) would deplete funds available for debt write off leaving little available for people in genuine financial distress.

    No, BTLS should be handled first since they are not primary residences and no excuses.
    It is basically an asset to the "owner" and allowing people continued ownership of an asset (i.e. not a personal home) at the epxense of others is a complete fooking joke.
    Then the ones who are in arrears with no effort being made to pay.
    From there work down.

    And there should be no fooking debt writeoffs.
    If mortgage unsustainable and can't be restructured then person goes for personal insolvency and bankruptcy.
    Upshot is they lose the property.

    Debt writeoff with continued "ownership" of property is a fancy fooking term for saying the rest of us pay for your asset.
    Screw that for a game of cowboys. :mad:

    BTW some around here and in the media appear to be of the opinion that home owners/property owners are more equal than those who chose to rent.
    Everything must be done to keep home owners in their homes even if it means others have no choice but to rent.

    Perhaps some of this opinion might have enjoyed living in Northern Ireland upto the 60s where one had to be a property owner to truly enjoy democracy. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #136
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    StillWaters wrote: »
    Wrong. The majority will have a housing need, are likely to be families and have suffered a significant decrease in income. There is a very real poverty trap barrier at play here should they enter the private rental sector. That is, it would be beneficial for them to give up work in order to avail of RA. That could be a large draw on the DSP resources.

    This applies for working families who rent too. Why do only the ones paying a mortgage (or not) deserve your especial sympathy in this matter?

    I don't see any of your posts concerned that working class families on one income need to find almost a thousand euros a month post-tax to rent a very ordinary house in a place like Ballyfermot.


  • Options
    #137
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,981 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    gaius c wrote: »
    This applies for working families who rent too. Why do only the ones paying a mortgage (or not) deserve your especial sympathy in this matter?

    I don't see any of your posts concerned that working class families on one income need to find almost a thousand euros a month post-tax to rent a very ordinary house in a place like Ballyfermot.

    I think you will find that the entry price for renting, particularly is the less appealing areas and property's such as in Ballyfermot, are near identical to the RA cap of the same area. Which is a very obvious crutch, propping up both house prices in the area and the rents.

    It is on a gradual decline. Plenty of posts in here from people whinging about it over the last 12 months.


  • Options
    #138
    StillWaters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    gaius c wrote: »

    This applies for working families who rent too. Why do only the ones paying a mortgage (or not) deserve your especial sympathy in this matter?

    I don't see any of your posts concerned that working class families on one income need to find almost a thousand euros a month post-tax to rent a very ordinary house in a place like Ballyfermot.
    But most working families don't rent. They purchase. I don't have an especial sympathy, I am posting from a policy perspective. The draw on the tax payer from evictions would be higher than from warehousing, debt for equity or many other schemes.


  • Options
    #139
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    StillWaters wrote: »
    But most working families don't rent. They purchase. I don't have an especial sympathy, I am posting from a policy perspective. The draw on the tax payer from evictions would be higher than from warehousing, debt for equity or many other schemes.

    Not now they don't. Have you not noticed the 50% increase in the numbers renting because they cannot buy and a key reason for it is that folk are being allowed to keep houses they cannot afford thus starving the market of supply.


  • Options
    #140
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    gaius c wrote: »
    Not now they don't. Have you not noticed the 50% increase in the numbers renting because they cannot buy and a key reason for it is that folk are being allowed to keep houses they cannot afford thus starving the market of supply.

    Many of those renting are also biding their time hoping prices will come down more in part due to repossessions. Just ask Lima.


  • Options
    #141
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    Many of those renting are also biding their time hoping prices will come down more in part due to repossessions. Just ask Lima.

    As you said yourself:
    cookie1977 wrote: »
    just speculating


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    At least you agree finally ;)


  • Options
    #143
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    Many of those renting are also biding their time hoping prices will come down more in part due to repossessions. Just ask Lima.

    Yes, because they need to. Most of the houses in my range out there are awful, yet there is stock being withheld by people who haven't services their mortgages in over two years!! I mean come on!!!!

    My fear is that more and more people are being normalised to this situation. it's frankly shocking to be honest.

    Repossess homes asap, let the market bottom out, and let the new generation of home buyers (like me) start the whole cycle again (that last bit is sarcasm)


  • Options
    #144
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Anyone watching Prime Time tonight?
    The fellow who wrote this letter to the IT was on:
    Sir, – “If you cannot afford your present accommodation or a sensible debt restructuring then unfortunately you should declare insolvency and forfeit your house” writes Adrian Mulryan (February 25th) with a compassion that makes Attila the Hun look like Mother Teresa.

    We have to recognise that in the midst of Celtic tiger property hysteria most buyers acted not of out greed or stupidity, but out of a desire to provide a long-term housing solution for themselves and their families.

    In writing about the moral hazard of some potential resolutions one could equally highlight a point in our history when the residents of council estates were given the opportunity to purchase their homes at prices substantially below market levels, effectively being subsidised by the taxpayer. This was correctly regarded at the time as giving folk an opportunity that might not have otherwise have possible. Such enlightened and non-condemnatory thinking is badly needed in the current environment. – Yours, etc,

    GEOFF SCARGILL,

    Loreto Grange,

    Bray, Co Wicklow.

    So what did he have to say for himself?
    Well...he has five rental properties, all on interest only.
    Wants a 'deal' and claims he made jobs,paid lots of fees in the past by getting into the landlord business, etc.

    Remember this fellow when you're volunteering the rest of us to help people in genuine trouble with mortgages on their PPR.


  • Options
    #145
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    By your own admission he's BTL so why refer to PDH/PPR?


  • Options
    #146
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Because his letter to the IT is dishonest and masquerading under pretense of being concerned about folk losing their homes when all he's concerned about is hopping on that debt forgiveness trojan horse and getting his own deal.


  • Options
    #147
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    gaius c wrote: »
    Because his letter to the IT is dishonest and masquerading under pretense of being concerned about folk losing their homes when all he's concerned about is hopping on that debt forgiveness trojan horse and getting his own deal.

    So what. He's been found out. He'd have gotten away with nothing against the tax payer or the bank. He can right as many dishonest letters to the IT as he likes but it's not going to change his situation when it comes to a deal/repossession. I still don't get the relationship between him and PDH/PPR


  • Options
    #148
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,139 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    I recently sold a house for €85k in an estate which is fully occupied. A repo in the same estate is now on the market for €65k.

    However, there's another newer estate right beside this one, and half of the houses (approx 70 in total) are owned by NAMA and there are a lot of rumours they will be released for sale in the not too distant future.

    I had used this as a deciding factor when trying to make my mind up about selling my own, and I do think that I did the right thing by selling up, because once these NAMA houses are released, I think the value of properties will plummet. Under €50k easily.


  • Options
    #149
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,513 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Villa05 wrote: »
    I believe that every effort should be made to keep people in their homes, however where do we draw the line. At what point is a mortgage considered unsustainable and repossession with some debt write off, the only solution. This is my call.

    Resdential should be tackled first, Repossessing BTL's first (as I fear will happen because of many peoples attitudes) would deplete funds available for debt write off leaving little available for people in genuine financial distress.

    Resedential
    - In arrears up to 90 days 49,393 (Q3 2012 50,031) Recoverable 10% danger of repossesion
    - In arrears 91 to 180 days 19,073 (Q3 2012 19,814) Recoverable 20% danger of repossesion
    - In arrears over 180 days 75,415 (Q3 2012 71,544)
    of which
    - In arrears 181 to 360 days 24,063 (Q3 2012 24,469) Recoverable 50% danger of repossesion
    - In arrears 261 to 720 days 27,829 (Q3 2012 26,453) Recovery unlikely 80% danger of repossession
    - In arrears over 720 days 23,523 (Q3 2012 20,622) Repossession

    Residential Restructured
    Reduced Payment (less than interest only) 6,951 – Repossession Chance 80%
    Interest Only 29,724

    BTL Restructured
    Interest Only 11,641
    Reduced Payment (greater than interest only) 4,130
    Reduced Payment (less than interest only) 542 Repossession chance 100%


    BTL Arrears
    In arrears up to 90 days 9,534
    In arrears 91 to 180 days 4,7625 Repossession chance 70%
    In arrears 181 to 360 days 6,830 Repossession chance 80%
    In arrears 361 to 720 days 9,075 Repossession chance 100%
    In arrears over 720 days 7,754 Repossession chance 100%

    Total mortgages in 100% Repossession category as of Quartter 4 2012 =
    23,523 + 9,075 + 7,754 + 542 = 40,894

    80% chance of repossession = 6,951 + 6,830 + 27,829 = 41,610

    How can politicians stand there and say there will not be a flood of repossessions when over 40,000 mortgages are in this category today.


  • Options
    #150
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    I don't understand why people keep talking about repossessing BTL's as if people are against that. I'm for repossession of BTL's if they're unsustainable. Most of us promoting a careful and cautious approach to repossessions refer only to PDH/PPR's.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,513 ✭✭✭Villa05


    gaius c wrote: »
    Anyone watching Prime Time tonight?
    The fellow who wrote this letter to the IT was on:


    So what did he have to say for himself?
    Well...he has five rental properties, all on interest only.
    Wants a 'deal' and claims he made jobs,paid lots of fees in the past by getting into the landlord business, etc.

    Remember this fellow when you're volunteering the rest of us to help people in genuine trouble with mortgages on their PPR.

    The same guy is a bit aggrieved at talks of the state pulling subsidies to fee paying schools :mad:

    This is my point about dealing with residential first, if we don't this person will get debt forgiveness before the householder in genuine distress
    Sir, – The subject of the State capitation grant to fee-paying schools has yet again raised its ugly head. Louise Holden reminds us (Home News, March 5th) that “The State pays teacher salaries in both sets of schools. Much of the discretionary spend earned by fee-paying schools from fees is now spent on recruiting teachers privately to reduce pupil-teacher ratios”.

    In other words, parents are paying for this “discretionary spend” to give their children the best possible chance of a good education. In the vast majority of cases it is a struggle for parents to send their children to these schools and any withdrawal of funding will mean a huge influx of pupils into the State system because of the resulting increase in fees. This will put huge pressure on non fee-paying schools, which will require substantial increases in state funding negating any saving made.

    It will also result in the closure of many excellent fee-paying schools that are already in financial difficulty due to falling numbers because of the current economic climate.

    The result of all this might satisfy the begrudgers and meet the philosophical whims of the Labour Party, but will do untold damage to the educational structure and reputation of this country. Every school will suffer and every pupil will be disadvantaged by such a measure.

    This is not an economic argument because no money will be saved – it is a philosophical and damaging argument rooted in begrudery and false doctrine. – Yours, etc,

    GEOFF SCARGILL,
    Loreto Grange,
    Bray,
    Co Wicklow.

    http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=55376&p=689494&hilit=irish+times#p689494


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement