For anyone who faces losing their home...

Mahatma coat

Riight, so who is going to fund this country post IMF?

How about we start with the people of Ireland, instead of taking their money and giving it to some Slimey InternationalBankers use that as Investment Seed capital.

Primarily the IMF need to be told to take their parasitic arses out of the Country and Give back the Money they have Stolen

ilovesleep

Mahatma coat wrote: »

How about we start with the people of Ireland, instead of taking their money and giving it to some Slimey InternationalBankers use that as Investment Seed capital.

Primarily the IMF need to be told to take their parasitic arses out of the Country and Give back the Money they have Stolen

The imf are the good guys. Its the eu and their bondholders and our two spineless, brainless pinnocihos that are sinking us.

Mahatma coat

The IMF have a long history of NOT Being the Good Guys.

Liam Byrne

CokaColumbo wrote: »

If the bank let everybody stay in their homes after they had violated the terms of their mortgage contract, then a whole lot of people would just stop paying their mortgages, crippling the bank. The result: no mortgage or homes for anybody!

So you're saying that if you owe you should pay it back ?

I used to be a firm believer in that until about 2 years ago when the banks were selective as to who they applied it to.

johnnyskeleton

CokaColumbo wrote: »

The result of this would be that every bank, regardless of its lending practices, would lose much of its assets and income and would go out of business.

Just as important, if people get their houses for free, then why would someone buy a house anymore when they can just take one and never be evicted? I'll find a nice unoccupied gaff in Ranelagh, break open the door and start squatting. When the owner comes back I'll just say it is my family home and they can go swing.

Even worse, if property has no value, why should I have to live in a modest house when someone weaker than me is living in a bigger house. I simply round up my buddies and do a private eviction on them. Once I'm in I cannot lawfully be evicted, and so they will have to get an even bigger posse to evict me.

Why should I pay for a loaf of bread down the shops then? I can simply take it and put it under my jumper. If anyone tries to repossess it I can claim it is my family loaf and can't be taken away.

So the knock on effects are much greater than the damage to the banks. If property rights are not respected it leads to a violent land grab where whoever can hold the best property keeps it.

johnnyskeleton

Mahatma coat wrote: »

What you will find is that a lot of the BVanks Bundled these mortages together and SOLD them to another institution, the key point is SOLD, the banks have been Paid for the money they lent you, your obligation has been released.

Legally your house has been paid for, you can say thank you to the Hedge fund that paid your mortgage, but YOU have not Contracted with them, and the Bank had no right to contract with them without First consulting you, you have signed a piece of paper with the bank, thats no longer a valid arangement as the bank dont own your House anymore.

I'll wager that every mortgage deed in Ireland contains a term that the mortgage loan can be sold on by the bank without prior agreement of the borrower.

johnnyskeleton

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Neither does it say that it has to protect family homes - just the family. Does it mean that families renting are actually entitled to own the house they live in?

This is another thing. If people who have taken out mortgages get to keep their houses, do people who rent get to keep their landlord's house?

A bar on evicting mortgage holders should have a similar bar on evicting tenants. Thus further crippling the property market as no one ever rents out a property again.

johnnyskeleton

ilovesleep wrote: »

@ Donegalfella - could David and Fiona go to their bank and renegotiate the terms of their mortgage by adding 20, 30 or 40 years onto their mortgage therefore having to pay back less every month over a longer term. When they retire they could pass the remainder of their mortgage onto their kids.

Uugh. An idea championed by Mark Coleman, who thinks it is better to enslave our children in debt rather than let house prices go down:

http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=26474

The reality is as well that the David and Fiona cited probably bought a one bed apartment in some outer suburb of Dublin. They don't want to live there now that they are having a child, and their children certainly wont be best pleased to inherit a worthless property (apartments are built to last only a few decades) but with a massive amount of debt added in.

People must face the reality - house prices over the last few years were unsustainably high. The solution is to reduce house prices, not to keep them artificially high.

swampgas

Adding 30 or 40 years to the term of the mortgage doesn't mean the repayments will be that much lower.

Worked example (using http://www.myhome.ie/calculators/mortgage ):

€ 100,000 @ 4.7% over 15 years => 775 pcm
€ 100,000 @ 4.7% over 30 years => 518 pcm
€ 100,000 @ 4.7% over 60 years => 416 pcm
€ 100,000 @ 4.7% over 100 years => 395 pcm

In this example, extending from say 30 years to 100 years has only reduced the monthly payments by 23%. And you would be paying huge amounts of extra interest over the longer term.

FreudianSlippers

WildBoots wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVYIBikzwmk

"Don't leave your home. Because you know what? When those companies say they have your mortgage, unless you have a lawyer that can put his or her finger on that mortgage, you don't have that mortgage, and you are going to find they can't find the paper".

Just say no.

Ask to see the original mortgage contract.

Send the fckers marching.

This is scarily wrong. This is the type of thinking that is very dangerous and can really damage peoples lives.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

But thats the point, Mass Default might not be such a bad thing, rationalise the markets.

But do you dispute the Truth of what is being said, if they cant produce a Deed which gives them Legal Rights over your Home then they dont really have that Legal Right.

Wrong.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

But thats the thing tho, These Banks have Traded and Bundled and Sold on the Mortgage, your Debt is to the person/institution that holds the Mortgage as security, you will find that it is not the Bank you are dealing with, they have SOLD your mortgage to someone else, therefore they have no right to collect on that debt unless they can produce your mortgage. Adverse then comes into play.

They still have the right, it's in the contract you signed with the banks.

Banks wouldnt suddenly Cease to exist either, thats a disengenous scare tactic, Lots of Banks would Fail, and that would be a good thing, the Banks that would be left would be the ones that were Robust and had sane and stable lending practices, You probably still believe that Baling out Anglo was a Great Idea.

I agree with this point. The question becomes then who do we want owning our banks? China or the taxpayers?
Look, I think we're getting screwed with the whole deal, but was it a good idea at the time? Yes, I think it was the only real option we had other than do nothing - which I believe is never a good idea.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Ah but it all comes back to who holds the Deed.

If the Bank that are trying to charge you dont hold the deed to your house then they have no claim to it.

What you will find is that a lot of the BVanks Bundled these mortages together and SOLD them to another institution, the key point is SOLD, the banks have been Paid for the money they lent you, your obligation has been released.

Legally your house has been paid for, you can say thank you to the Hedge fund that paid your mortgage, but YOU have not Contracted with them, and the Bank had no right to contract with them without First consulting you, you have signed a piece of paper with the bank, thats no longer a valid arangement as the bank dont own your House anymore.

Noooooooooooo. Not a single correct thing here.
Your house is only worth what people will pay for it.

You have contracted with the bank to take a loan on a property to purchase that property. They essentially allow you to live there - it is only "your" house in equity. If you breach said contract they have the right to evict you from that house...

Mahatma coat wrote: »

thats the point tho, Do they actually have the Physical Deed?

If you investigate it you will find that more often than not they have SOLD your Mortgage to some Hedgfund type organisation, You had a deal with the BANK not the Hedgefund, if the Bank have been Paid for your house then they no longer own it, the hedge fund does, but you have not Contracted with them so in essence they have generously Paid off your mortgage in the hope that you wouldnt notice and instead continue paying them money.

Physical deed is irrelevant tbh.

later12

Mahatma coat wrote: »

How about we start with the people of Ireland, instead of taking their money and giving it to some Slimey InternationalBankers use that as Investment Seed capital.

Oh right, so we dip into peoples' savings accounts? Or how about their current accounts? This is a great idea, how about we abolish private property too! Jeez why has nobody ever thought of this before!

We could call it communitism. No, no, wait, communalism.. no....wait, I'm getting there...

mistermouse

Some system will need to be worked out where people can have mortgages extended or reworked to make them affordable in the interim. Its quite possible that the country will recover over say 10 years and perhaps allow for property to increase in value.

I do not believe that those who didn't get into the property bubble should have to pay to keep anyone else afloat, especially those who lived beyond their means. The taxpayer should not have to bailout banks, developers or mortgage holders and allow any of them to continue with the lifestyles they are accustomed to.

Perhaps those who have to forego their home, do so but are allowed to stay on renting. I am sure its better than being saddled with their mortgages and still get use of their home.

If people get a bailout to keep their homes at the taxpayers expense, should those who don't, not get massive lump sums or tax writeoffs for years to make up for it. We are told that Nama and the Banks are important to keep the country viable but we are also told that the Taxpayer might, just might see a return over 10/20 years.

Writing off mortgage debt will never produce any benefit for the taxpayer, only those who enetered into foolish agreements and would get to keep the asset.

FreudianSlippers

The problem is really visible in the US at the moment. They are coming out of their recession (way worse than here btw) and those that have managed to hang on to their houses are now buried in debt and have destroyed their credit rating.
Then when they cannot afford to pay their mortgage and all credit has run try the banks want to foreclose.

What's happening that is disgusting is this:

Person X owes $250,000 on their mortgage and cannot pay.
House is now worth $100,000 and Person X does whatever they can to offer to pay the bank $100,000 but the bank (because of Person X's Credit report) says no.
Then the bank does so called "repossession tours" of these homes and sells them to, lets face it, scavengers for $80,000.

North_West_Art

OisinT wrote: »

What's happening that is disgusting is this:

Person X owes $250,000 on their mortgage and cannot pay.
House is now worth $100,000 and Person X does whatever they can to offer to pay the bank $100,000 but the bank (because of Person X's Credit report) says no.
Then the bank does so called "repossession tours" of these homes and sells them to, lets face it, scavengers for $80,000.

...and the bank then follows Person X for the outstanding $170,000 owed on the original mortgage agreement (which is also happening here)

amacca

OisinT wrote: »

Then the bank does so called "repossession tours" of these homes and sells them to, lets face it, scavengers for $80,000.

I take it you wouldn't try to profit from anothers misfortune?

Me...I'm not so sure.

FreudianSlippers

amacca wrote: »

I take it you wouldn't try to profit from anothers misfortune?

Me...I'm not so sure.

They actually call themselves scavengers tbf.

I would definitely profit off of it, I'm not saying they are wrong for doing so... I'm saying the banks are wrong for not giving the current resident the opportunity to work out a deal on the house before selling it off.

Remember these scavengers also get federal tax credits and subsidies for purchasing the homes from the US Federal Government.

amacca

OisinT wrote: »

They actually call themselves scavengers tbf.

I would definitely profit off of it, I'm not saying they are wrong for doing so... I'm saying the banks are wrong for not giving the current resident the opportunity to work out a deal on the house before selling it off.

Remember these scavengers also get federal tax credits and subsidies for purchasing the homes from the US Federal Government.

ah, fair play...I misinterpreted. I admire a bit of honesty......even if I'm not always able to practice it despite making the effort.

johnnyskeleton

OisinT wrote: »

They actually call themselves scavengers tbf.

I would definitely profit off of it, I'm not saying they are wrong for doing so... I'm saying the banks are wrong for not giving the current resident the opportunity to work out a deal on the house before selling it off.

Remember these scavengers also get federal tax credits and subsidies for purchasing the homes from the US Federal Government.

Supposing in your example that the house is worth 100k i.e. either the homeowner could service that level of debt or else one of your "scavengers" is prepared to pay that.

All things being equal, why is it morally wrong for the bank to prefer someone new with a good credit rating and no debts over the person with a bad credit rating that has already cost them a 160k loss?

This idea that people should be allowed to remain living in a house that they cannot afford because it is "their home" is a nonsense. If I rent a €4k per month dalkey pile and stop paying the rent after the first month, can I stay squatting there forever because it is "my home"? Alternatively, should the landlord be obliged to reduce the rent to whatever level I can afford? If not, how is a mortgage situation any different?

noodler

I wish we had the US system whereby you can simply give the keys back and walk away and not be chased for the outstanding mortgage.

FreudianSlippers

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Supposing in your example that the house is worth 100k i.e. either the homeowner could service that level of debt or else one of your "scavengers" is prepared to pay that.

All things being equal, why is it morally wrong for the bank to prefer someone new with a good credit rating and no debts over the person with a bad credit rating that has already cost them a 160k loss?

This idea that people should be allowed to remain living in a house that they cannot afford because it is "their home" is a nonsense. If I rent a €4k per month dalkey pile and stop paying the rent after the first month, can I stay squatting there forever because it is "my home"? Alternatively, should the landlord be obliged to reduce the rent to whatever level I can afford? If not, how is a mortgage situation any different?

I'm just saying that the banks should consider allowing the people currently living in the home to pay $100,000 over a 3rd party paying $80,000.

Amhran Nua

Irish Slaves for Europe wrote: »

Restructuring mortgages to an affordable amount for the mortgage holder would seem a sensible solution, with the house then being sold by the bank when they die. In most cases the value of the house would then be greater than the mortgage still outstanding, in which case the bank takes they share to cover off the rest of the mortgage and any surplus then goes to the children of the deceased.

That's actually not a horribly bad idea. I can see two problems with it though - you'd have to convince the people the banks owe money to to accept a longer term payback, which I can't see happening, and you'd consign all those people who bought accommodation barely fit for human habitation as a "starter home" to live there for the rest of their lives, which may not be tenable if they have children.

Its a grim situation, no doubt about it. I think most commentators are looking at it from the wrong angle though. The best outcome is if the mortgages get repaid, that way the banks (I mean the government and hence the taxpayers) get good assets on the books, the homeowners get to keep their homes, and the wolf is put from the national door.

The only way to secure such an outcome is by shifting the focus to getting in good or at least reasonable paying jobs, and plenty of them, and stop trying to come up with financial acrobatics to kick the can up the road.

Debt laws need to be reformed, but they can't be reformed for existing debts because that would bury the banks even deeper, and cost us even more, bringing default ever closer. The IMF suggestion focused on enterprise debt, which is exactly what should be looked at.

Any scheme to shift further debt onto the taxpayer is morally and financially insupportable, everyone needs to get that through their heads once and for all.

We're already going to be paying more taxes just to secure the money we have saved in the banks.