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
Fair play to Enda Kenny
Options
Comments
-
-
I fully agree, that's why the if is in my post and why I tried to highlight the two factors needed for negative equity to not be a problem. I would completely agree that there's both a sizeable minority for whom repayments are/will be a problem and another minority for whom selling in the short to medium term is very likely.
I respect what you are saying but I'm not convinced these people are in a minority. I dont know for sure, but I'm not convinced.The thing is if you look at people who initially bought before 2000, which is a lot of people and probably a majority of present home owners*, then they probably don't have a problem with repayments because inflation and cost of living increases to wages have probably made those repayments a relatively small percentage of their take home pay.
Thats a lot of probably's there ... probably too many for most economists
Negative equity lasting well into t-10 (Japan I think among others iirc) is well know. t-30 though is getting towards more reasonable territory for the average home in a country to be back out of negative equity. 30 years of inflation is a lot even with low and stable inflation over the time period.
Thats why I questioned Black Briar on his assertions. In my opinion he (as well as 99'er) "probably" dont understand what negative equity really means or its consequences.
I'm a regular reader of this forum but rarely contribute. Tbh I'm just really sick of the FF fanboys on here spouting their ill-informed rubbish. I just had to call bull**** on it this time.0 -
I respect what you are saying but I'm not convinced these people are in a minority. I dont know for sure, but I'm not convinced.
I'd veer on the side of them being a minority over them being a majority simply because as bad as banks are they're not *that* stupid, combined with banks here generally being very happy to work out alternative arrangements with people with foreclosure being a last resort and banks being able to seek the balance left over if the sale of the property doesn't pay off the mortgage means it's quite a different situation to the US where defaults on mortgages are a far more likely occurrence when the market goes down.Thats a lot of probably's there ... probably too many for most economists
Economists live in a world constantly qualified by "probably" tbh.Thats why I questioned Black Briar on his assertions. In my opinion he (as well as 99'er) "probably" doesnt understand what negative equity really means or its consequences.
In fairness you haven't explained explicitly what you think negative equity really means or its consequences from what I can see.Tbh I'm just really sick of the FF fanboys on here spouting their ill-informed rubbish.
Really? I think the forum has a fair balance of ill-informed FF fanboys and ill-informed FF bashers...
0 -
Economists live in a world constantly qualified by "probably" tbh.
We must be hanging with different economists so! The ones I know deal with facts and figures and would frown on people making broad, unsupported and ill-informed politically biased statements which they are unwilling or unable to support.In fairness you haven't explained explicitly what you think negative equity really means or its consequences from what I can see.
I dont have to. I'm making comment on Black Briars and 99'ers statements. In effect, calling bullshit where I see it.Really? I think the forum has a fair balance of ill-informed FF fanboys and ill-informed FF bashers...
Thats why I take pride in being a very well informed FF basher (in this case!!! but I have an intolerance of all bullshit whatever side it comes from tbh):D:D:D:D 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The probably's are in the maths and the initial formation of the models and basic assumptions about behaviour, drawing conclusion from statistical analysis etc. It's a discussion best left to a different forum though.
I disagree about the "probably's", but agree about leaving that for another day and a different forum.Regardless this is an online politics forum and expecting the same kind of rigor that you'd get in academic debate isn't very realistic
I'm not expecting a high level of academic rigor from anyone on this forum, and nowhere have I asked for that.
However, I dont think there is anything wrong with disagreeing with someone and asking them to support their argument. This is exactly what I am doing.I disagree, if you're calling bull**** then you should explain why they are wrong. Even if only to enlighten other people as to why you think that they are wrong.
With respect, I disagree with you there.
The main point of my posts is to challenge and strongly disagree with some of the views expressed here concerning negative equity. I am very clearly calling politically biased bullshit, and in particular I am asking two people to support, justify and explain the statements they have made.
And besides, I have given my opinion on negative equity in my previous posts for all to see above. Lets wait for the two lads get back to this thread. If they do I'll be very very happy to discuss this further and I'm sure more of my opinions will come to light at that point 0 -
Well uhm,After 10 years of paying the loan,I'd be hoping some of it will be paid off.Irony perhaps?:D
How do you know there wont be negative equity in t-29 or t-10? Proof or a reference please to support what you are saying. There are many examples of negative equity in t-10 and even beyond that.
After 29 years most of it.
As Neg equity is defined as the loan being bigger than the value of the asset- QED.
They stay put for a little longer just like the guy in the queue for the ipod when it's sold out.What about the people who wish to trade up or sell (say, to move abroad?)? How will negative equity effect them?
They're not in a crisis.It comes with the territory.
I don't have to quote anything other than for example Bank of Irelands statement the other day on their loan book where they reckoned 0.5% of it next year could be impaired rising to 0.9% in 2 years.How do you know that applies to the "vast majority of home owners"? Do you have a reference to some stat to support this or are you just saying words that will magically become fact (see first quote above)
I think that alone being a 99% unimpaired debt speaks for itself.
My maths is correct.By what you are saying,you'd swear the vast majority of homeowners are in trouble they are not.You have an incredibly misguided understanding of this, and in my opinion your posts show this clearly.
You are also falling for journalists favourite buzz word at times like these.
Rofl.Again, absolute rubbish.
The prices you are quoting are those for unrefined crude oil, and most of the heads of the major oil companies have already dismissed the correlation you have implied. The price drop you mention may never "find its way to the pumps eventually".
You think the price of refined oil doesn't fall in relation to the falling price of Crude?
Rofl.
My own home heating oil delivery guy quoted me a price one third cheaper than during the summer.I know for a fact that my local Tesco is chargin 19c a litre less than it was 3 months ago for petrol and this is likely to fall further.
I suggest you open your eyes
0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Well uhm,After 10 years of paying the loan,I'd be hoping some of it will be paid off.
After 29 years most of it.
As Neg equity is defined as the loan being bigger than the value of the asset- QED.
Not QED. Not even by a long shot.
There are many examples of negative equity after ten years and even beyond ten years. Japan being just one example referenced above.Deleted User wrote: »They stay put for a little longer just like the guy in the queue for the ipod when it's sold out.
They're not in a crisis.It comes with the territory.
Nice trivialization there of the real pain some people are suffering.
It really gives your argument credibility to compare a house to an iPod.Deleted User wrote: »You think the price of refined oil doesn't fall in relation to the falling price of Crude?
My own home heating oil delivery guy quoted me a price one third cheaper than during the summer.I know for a fact that my local Tesco is chargin 19c a litre less than it was 3 months ago for petrol and this is likely to fall further.
I'm sure your oil delivery guy is amazing, but I think I'd rather pay more attention to a detailed study by the Energy Information Administration. Or even this detailed study. Both studies prove conclusively that not all reductions in the price of crude oil lead to reductions in the price of petrol as you have claimed. In fact, the differences are quite large sometimes.
Thus, it is "crude" (please excuse the pun!), simplistic and ill-informed to say that reductions in the price of a barrel of unrefined oil "will find its way to the pumps eventually". It might, but as the data shows it might not.
Unlike your assertions, my claims are supported by detailed research and historical fact. See how that works? And I didnt even have to ask my local oil guy anything!!!
Hows that for a QED for ya!!!!!:D:D:D:D 0 -
Not in Ireland though or Britain.Not QED. Not even by a long shot.
There are many examples of negative equity after ten years and even beyond ten years. Japan being just one example referenced above.
Gosh if a person is losing sleep over the value of a house being less than the loan amount if they got a 100% mortgage and can pay the loan,then they are the ones that are being trivial.Nice trivialization there of the real pain some people are suffering.
It really gives your argument credibility to compare a house to an iPod.
Lol...Quoting stats from the U.S where a bit of wind in the Gulf is enough to cause queues in Texas is not relevant to Ireland.I'm sure your oil delivery guy is amazing, but I think I'd rather pay more attention to a detailed study by the Energy Information Administration. Or even this detailed study. Both studies prove conclusively that not all reductions in the price of crude oil lead to reductions in the price of petrol as you have claimed. In fact, the differences are quite large sometimes.
Now go ask your local delivery guy what the price of Kero is now compared to mid summer and also take a look at your local filling station.
You are fond of citing the tiniest of fractions of incidences I see and feigning that they dispute the experience of the majority of cases.Thus, it is "crude" (please excuse the pun!), simplistic and ill-informed to say that reductions in the price of a barrel of unrefined oil "will find its way to the pumps eventually". It might, but as the data shows it might not.
Not much of one to be honest.Unlike your assertions, my claims are supported by detailed research and historical fact. See how that works? And I didnt even have to ask my local oil guy anything!!!
Hows that for a QED for ya!!!!!:D:D:D:D
I know my pocket is roughly 200 Euro heavier for having bought the kero now than three months ago.
As a regular purchaser of that and Derv I've a fair idea that a 2003 U.S survey is pretty meaningless.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Not in Ireland though or Britain.
Or if the sun is shining, and there is a T in the month, and if the house has a yellow door:D:D lol
Let me ask you this ... and please do me the honour of answering directly. Would you accept that there is a strong possibility that what has happened in the past in similar economic conditions has a chance of happening again? Is there is at least a chance that negative equity could last a lot longer in Ireland that you think?Deleted User wrote: »Gosh if a person is losing sleep over the value of a house being less than the loan amount if they got a 100% mortgage and can pay the loan,then they are the ones that are being trivial.
Well gosh, I would humbly suggest that there are a lot of people losing a lot of sleep over the decreasing value of their property and negative equity for some of the reasons I have mentioned above. I know some of them. Just because you are in the happy position of not having to worry about such "trivial" things does not mean its not the reality out there for the rest of us.
I think most economists would disagree with your view that negative equity is a trivial matter.Deleted User wrote: »Lol...Quoting stats from the U.S where a bit of wind in the Gulf is enough to cause queues in Texas is not relevant to Ireland.
Now go ask your local delivery guy what the price of Kero is now compared to mid summer and also take a look at your local filling station.
Do you have even one reference to quote to support anything you are saying?
Even one?
Anything will do ... any stat, study, piece of research, newspaper article, reference.
Anything!
Does anyone (who knows that they are talking about) agree with you????????????????Deleted User wrote: »You are fond of citing the tiniest of fractions of incidences I see and feigning that they dispute the experience of the majority of cases.
Who says they are the majority of cases?
Look dude, I envy you. I really do. I know that you probably honestly believe everything you are saying. You seem to living in some sort of economic bubble, or wonderland or something. You are not worried about negative equity. You are better off financially and have MORE money in your pocket even though the entire planet is in the teeth of recession and hurtling towards a depression to rival anything in living memory. You have no concerns about the "trivial" matters the rest of us (and the entire economic community) are losing sleep over. You get information on complex international economics and transfer pricing from your local tradesman, whilst ignoring the greatest economic minds on the planet who are saying the opposite! You buy houses as easily as the rest of us buy iPods!!!!
And (most importantly) you are so arrogant and out of touch that you consider yourself to be all knowing and so super-informed that you are willing to blissfully ignore all evidence that contradicts your own views, without feeling any need to back up anything you claim. Even though your claims are clearly laughable.
Are you Brian Cowen? Or Bertie Ahern?
Seriously. Are you?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
This thread is completely off topic now, but who cares. I'm not seeing Gandalf 23s posts bt am catching quotes here and there.
To accuse me of knowing nothing of economics is a bit silly, since simple economics is market driven....if the market demands a lower price and some people's property is worth less, it means nothing unless they plan on selling it.That's economics.
A house is an asset...a home....it is not meant to be an investment. It is the same as a car. You buy a car because you need one, even though it puts you in negative equity immedietely, the same applies to a house.
Even companies gain/lose nothing on an asset until the sell it. They may have bought a property for £2,000 in 1964 that's now worth €4million. It's still possible (though not likely) that it's valued at the 1964 value on the balance sheet. That's accounting.
To base an economic strategy on the assumption that a house is the same as a car is like saying that a convicted murderer or rapist could be the best Taoiseach ever to serve.:D:D:D:D 0 -
-
-
-
-
... So what. My grandparents haven't moved house in 45 years...is the economy going to collapse and society going to head to hell in a handbasket?
AFFORDIBILITY of REPAYMENTS is the issue, not meaningless property valuations...
I bet your grandparents didn't buy a one bed apartment in Gorey or Mullingar or Navan :rolleyes:Deleted User wrote: »Well I disagree that our recession has been caused by a building contraction.It's in the main caused by the credit crunch.
Ah sure but for the credit crunch the developers could have sold the houses to more investors or even FTBs for a million a pop. We could have ever inflated house prioces, you know 15 times the average salary perhaps ?
Supply and demand means nothing I guess.Deleted User wrote: »You should read up a bit on this.
If you think all bank profits went out in dividends,you know nothing and desperately need to read up on this.If you think bank loans aren't a major input to the growth of an economy,you seriously do need to head to the library business and economics section.
Excuse me I said that the profits given in dividends, bonuses or reinvested in property loans could not be sued now.
Did i ever make any reference to loans for reasons apart from property ? NO.
But I guess being from FF you reckon the only business is property related in some way.Deleted User wrote: »Bull.A UK bank took 20 Billion from the British government this morning-how much did the Irish banks need ? Zilch so far anyhow.
Thats a very tiny minority and hardly an immediate priority for that tiny minority given that in 3 or 4 years their property value could be different.
If they were buying a place with the intention of moving in 12 months to two years,I've no sympathy for them to be honest.
So because our banks haven't availed of a capital handout as of yet, then they should be congratulated ? Maybe we shoudl give the executives a bonus :rolleyes:
Maybe it has something to do with fact that they are still covering up their loan books.
Again you are trying to say that negative equity will only affect people very short term by alluding to fact you have no pity for people who were planning to sell within a year or two. I am talking about young couples who would hope to start a family within a few years of marriage and thus would ideally like to move out of apartment land within maybe 5 years. These poeple would be hoping to move in 2010 after buying in 2005. If you see prices picking up or even remaining at same rates for the next 3 years then wipee for you.
Maybe you want them to stay for 45 years like 99er :rolleyes:Deleted User wrote: »It was roughly 19% of the Workforce-thats too fundamental? Whats unfundamental about the other 80%?
Does the 19% number include all the ones working in ancilliary services, such as quaries (personally know of large layoff in the West), truck drivers, hardware shops, carpet fitters, carpet showrooms, glaziers, etc, etc.
I bet a lot of the non construciton related jobs are in retail.
I had to laugh a couple of weeks back when there were news items that Dell may be going (it will eventually) and other job losses while at the same time on the news you had one of the government ministers (Coughlan me thinks) announcing that there were 400 odd extra jobs in Dundrum Shopping centre. That is a retail centre where some shops have already closed and there are sales on now most of the time.
Yeah real secure jobs there :rolleyes:
PS do FF get paid every time they mention "fundamental"
Deleted User wrote: »Don't know where It will go but I do know that it's down-meaning less commuting costs here,less heating costs just in time for the winter (I filled my tank this week actually-perhaps a tad too early but it was third cheaper than during the summer).
None of those items are affected by our government.
Well bully for you, you filled your tank. A guy in Poland probably filled his tank at the same timne and availed of lower prices also. Now does that make you more competitive than him and does it mean Ireland is now more competitive ?I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
-
I know thatLiam Byrne wrote: »Someone mentioned today that the tax take on our newly-inflated petrol price is now 52 cent, meaning that there's almost a 70% mark-up on petrol going directly to the Government!!!
I think it's one of the lowest tax takes from petrol in Europe though.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement