For anyone who faces losing their home...

20Cent

The op is about the situation in America but the rest of the posts seem to be about Ireland. From what I understand the US mortgage providers sold on the mortgages as packages which were then chopped up, sold, grouped and sold on a few more times ending up as all kinds of financial products. Everyone got a commission along the way of course including the bank. The bank had no reason not to give mortgages to all callers because they were selling them anyway, they were also getting the ratings agencies to give them good ratings for selling on.
Now the people who took the mortgage in the first place can't pay it so are being evicted. The problem seems to be who has the deeds to the house now? They have been chopped up and sold so many times and the paperwork on tracking them seems to have been very poor. So when the bank comes to claim the house the homeowner just has to say prove you own it. If the bank can't then why should it get the house?

Evictions have reached huge rates in the US, they have special courts just to do them as quickly as possible. There is the trend of "robosigners", people in the bank usually junior members who are instructed to sign and finish paper trails retrospectively and often incorrectly. Matt Taibbi has a very good article about it here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110

The next big leak from wikileaks is rumored to be about this issue and to show the wholesale fraud occurred which is going to be a huge mess particularly for Bank of America.

Don't know if the same kind of thing happened here re mortgages being sold on as financial products (maybe someone else does) but there will certainly be a lot more foreclosures happening in the near future. Something to watch out for. In Ireland of course due to lack of proper bankruptcy laws the evicted still owes the balance and has an extra kick in the teeth of paying more taxes/ levies to pay for the bank that kicked him out of his house!! A person in that situation is going to be seriously disenfrachised from society. Some of the solutions proposed on this thread suggest foreclosure but what happens then?
Will there be anyone to buy the property afterwards? There are 10's of thousands of empty places already. Empty buildings bring down the value of surrounding houses creating a spiral of problems for the people who live their and the banks that provided the mortgages to them.

Its all well and good just saying you bought it you pay for it or be evicted, but when there are tens of thousands of families involved does it not become too big to fail? The social and economic impact will be enormous. My suggestion which I'm sure will be torn apart is let the bank, the rating agencies and whoever sold on these packages of mortgages take a haircut on them. They were behaving recklessly and it is not up to the taxpayer to be bailing them out, again. The only person who actually is paying for these mistakes are the homeowners, they pay up or get evicted. The rest of the chain who profited handsomely from the whole mess all head off with their commissions and bonuses. Reading some of the posts and threads on boards.ie you'd think that the homeowners were getting a bailout they are not. The banks are though and the benefit they get is purely for their own gain, society suffers greatly because of this situation. It is a big mess but calling people who are in financial difficulty stupid, greedy etc may make the poster feel smug and superior but will achieve nothing to solve the situation, probably will make it worse in fact, for everyone even those who didn't buy in the boom.

Dempo1

20Cent wrote: »

The op is about the situation in America but the rest of the posts seem to be about Ireland. From what I understand the US mortgage providers sold on the mortgages as packages which were then chopped up, sold, grouped and sold on a few more times ending up as all kinds of financial products.

It is in fact true Banks sold on mortgages but despite this, its the Banks who are foreclosing and dealing with repossessions. I sadly have a few friends facing difficulties in the states. In fact one had his condo for closed a month ago. Such is the state of affairs there, the Bank have actually requested he move back in to the condo (having already vacating it), they have now offered to stall for closure and contribute towards utilities. I would not believe such a story if it were not such a close friend. Essentially what has happened is the banks are now holding onto millions, yes millions of properties that can't be sold and are deteriorating rapidly, i guess the banks thinking is its better to have properties maintained. In addition there is mounting controversy over the way banks foreclosed without adhering to due process and documentation not being properly handled.

Gosh, i hope Ireland is not going down this road but if it does, not just the banks are ****ed, we are all ****ed!

ilovesleep

@ 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.

Dempo1

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.

I happen to think this is one of a few logical steps that will have to be taken. I recall not so long ago couples purchased "HOMES" as a long term commitment, investment to achieve the thing you suggest. In reality Banks don't want to repossess or foreclose. I think it would be very simple to restructure Mortgages but equally separate those that are just untenable. To much time is focused on "Negative Equity", this only arises if properties are/have to be sold and indeed repossessed.

I also believe there is an argument to re look at the entire Principal/Format of Mortgage Loans. Surely a realistic re appraisal of how these loans work is needed, particularly their determination based on fluctuating interest rises and decreases. For example, why the obsession with interest rates. Why can't these loans be restructured in Personal Loans with a fixed interest rate for the balance of the mortgage outstanding. For example, look at the Balance, analyze the Mortgage holder/s realistic earning potential including worst case scenario's. Formulate an extended repayment period on an agreed interest rate (even one that is slightly higher than say the ECB rate) and move forward. Yes penalties can be factored in say if the borrow decided to sell before new term ended or agreed fast track foreclosure process if after an agreed period the mortgage was proven to be untenable.

Yes there is a lot to consider, amendments to current property law, financial regulations but at least its an option. Currently the countries mortgage crisis is at stalemate and ready to implode, in the mean time all we hear about is various expert groups making various expert recommendations! When are these groups actually going to Act!

KindOfIrish

CokaColumbo wrote: »

One of the fundamental roles of government is to enforce the terms of contracts which have been agreed voluntarily between private individuals. That includes mortgages. The Article of the Constitution which you cited does not provide any grounds on which the holder of a piece of property is able to stop paying for their home and still retain control over it. Such a principal does not exist in any constitution and in fact runs contrary to the most basic laws of democratic states. If your friend reneged on a legal contract with you, and you stood to lose €200,000 as a result, it would be the state's obligation to enforce the terms of that contract and hold your friend to account. The same applies to a private lending institution.

There is no more private lending institution in Ireland! All Irish banks practically nationalized.

Uuuh Patsy

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.

The banks would only just love that. How many generations into the future do you think they can can get you to commit to. This is the most disturbing thing I have heard suggested for a long time. I dont even know where to start explaining how bad an idea this is. I hope its sarcastic?

Dempo1

Uuuh Patsy wrote: »

The banks would only just love that. How many generations into the future do you think they can can get you to commit to. This is the most disturbing thing I have heard suggested for a long time. I dont even know where to start explaining how bad an idea this is. I hope its sarcastic?

Its not at all an unreasonable suggestion apart from 30/40 years extension. It is one of a few potentially logical options worth considering. I am sure it is easy enough to identify sustainable mortgages. I just get a sense there is a belief out there that 100% of mortgages taken out were reckless or indeed a high percentage of mortgage are in Negative equity. Why is it a disturbing idea for couples/Families who genuinely want to retain their HOMES, indefinitely but for whatever reason got caught up with the serious economic down turn and banking crisis over the past few years. I feel its important to note that there is a very high percentage of mortgage holders who took out loans way before the crash, perhaps had a good run and problem free decade or more, then perhaps decided to extend, re mortgage (on the basis of valuations) and then perhaps lost employment etc.

I feel it is a sensible proposition for a Bank & Mortgage Holder to sit down, look at the sustainability of a mortgage, take in worse case scenario's, stress test an extension even with a fixed rate of interest and payment schedule and proceed. I am not for one minute suggesting it will be easy and yes there will be mortgages that are just UN salvageable but certainly not the percentage predicted if common sense prevailed!

cooperguy

Dempo1 wrote: »

Its not at all an unreasonable suggestion apart from 30/40 years extension. It is one of a few potentially logical options worth considering. I am sure it is easy enough to identify sustainable mortgages. I just get a sense there is a belief out there that 100% of mortgages taken out were reckless or indeed a high percentage of mortgage are in Negative equity. Why is it a disturbing idea for couples/Families who genuinely want to retain their HOMES, indefinitely but for whatever reason got caught up with the serious economic down turn and banking crisis over the past few years. I feel its important to note that there is a very high percentage of mortgage holders who took out loans way before the crash, perhaps had a good run and problem free decade or more, then perhaps decided to extend, re mortgage (on the basis of valuations) and then perhaps lost employment etc.

I feel it is a sensible proposition for a Bank & Mortgage Holder to sit down, look at the sustainability of a mortgage, take in worse case scenario's, stress test an extension even with a fixed rate of interest and payment schedule and proceed. I am not for one minute suggesting it will be easy and yes there will be mortgages that are just UN salvageable but certainly not the percentage predicted if common sense prevailed!

Your suggesting that the children of people who take on a mortgage take over repayments when the original people retire? So your committing 10 year olds to the mortgage of their parents? What happens when these children want to buy a house how do they get a mortgage? How do you know what sort of earning potential they will have (even if it wasnt crazily immoral and legally impossible to do!)

Uuuh Patsy

Dempo1 wrote: »

Its not at all an unreasonable suggestion apart from 30/40 years extension. It is one of a few potentially logical options worth considering. I am sure it is easy enough to identify sustainable mortgages. I just get a sense there is a belief out there that 100% of mortgages taken out were reckless or indeed a high percentage of mortgage are in Negative equity. Why is it a disturbing idea for couples/Families who genuinely want to retain their HOMES, indefinitely but for whatever reason got caught up with the serious economic down turn and banking crisis over the past few years. I feel its important to note that there is a very high percentage of mortgage holders who took out loans way before the crash, perhaps had a good run and problem free decade or more, then perhaps decided to extend, re mortgage (on the basis of valuations) and then perhaps lost employment etc.

I feel it is a sensible proposition for a Bank & Mortgage Holder to sit down, look at the sustainability of a mortgage, take in worse case scenario's, stress test an extension even with a fixed rate of interest and payment schedule and proceed. I am not for one minute suggesting it will be easy and yes there will be mortgages that are just UN salvageable but certainly not the percentage predicted if common sense prevailed!

Good God, I can't believe you would even think this is even a slightly remotely good idea... It used to be 2.5 times your income... then it became 2.5 times your joint income... then it became as many times your income as you can handle without breaking into a cold sweat... Now you are honestly suggested we allow bankers factor in the income of your children when calculating the amount you can get... Give me a break... You must be taking the piss. Where have you been for the last year... Do you honestly trust bankers that much... You do realise they are just in it for the money and would galdly allow you sell your children to the highest bidder. .

What we need to do is press the reset button... Money is created from debt and this is the root of all the current problems... It would be better for everyone in the country to default on all debt and get this economic system to collapse as soon as possible. Hopefully it will become a contagion and collapse the euro too. I think the US is doing pretty good job of it themselves. At least it might offer a new start for our kids as the current system its a corrupt non functional system setup to allow a few bankers engorge themselves on your hard labour... Simple as that.

I cant understand people going around feeling lucky and privledge to be given loans by bankers that are in effect contracts to pay your next 30 years income to them. Do you really think they have massive vaults of gold to back it all up. It just numbers of computer screens. Its not real. Society is f*cked as long as we keep perpertuating this system.

And before you say it, maybe I am deluded but from where I am sitting the system seems more insane then I am...

Hayte

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

When a bank lends you money to buy a house, the house does not belong to the Bank. The house belongs to you. Maybe I'm misreading it but I get the impression in this thread that there is some confusion about who owns your house. The short of it is that you always own your house but the Bank retains a security interest in the house in the event that you don't pay back the money they gave to you under the terms of your mortgage. Anyway, it is critical to understand that owning a security interest in something is not the same as owning that something. The Bank will usually keep the title deeds to your house until you have redeemed the mortgage in full, at that point the title documentation will be returned to you and you can do whatever you want with them. Frame the 19th century lease or bundle them all into an envelope that goes into your solicitor's vault for safe keeping. Either way you cannot dispose of the house without the certificate of title.

What actually happens varies depending on personal circumstances but ideally, David and Fiona (to continue with your example) should buy themselves some time so they can sell their house. To buy time you can take out a second mortgage or enter into a forbearance agreement or whatever. Depending on when they bought the house they may have enough equity to borrow against. If not they need to pay down as much of the mortgage as they can out of the proceeds of a sale mutually agreed upon with the Bank. Then they may need to take out a personal loan to pay off whatever is still owed or have a firesale. That is, sell as many of your personal belongings as you can and which you no longer need. Maybe you can pay the difference in full but at the least it will lessen the burden of whatever personal loan you need to take out and thats David and Fiona clear of their mortgage debt and left in the clear or with a fixed interest personal loan.

Then David and Fiona do one of two things:

1) They buy a much smaller and cheaper house.
2) They rent.

The budget is that their monthly repayments + personal loan debt shouldn't exceed their expected monthly income. Yeah I know its not possible to figure out if your kid is gonna get sick but the steadier the ship, the easier it is to plan your life around.

It is still possible for this to go completely balls up and end in foreclosure but look at it this way - The bank really doesn't want to foreclose on you if you have crappy home equity. You won't have a house sure but they are gonna eat a loss and the process is expensive so they need to throw more good money after the bad. Silver lining I guess. Foreclosure is kind of like the red nuclear launch button of the property market. You only bother to look for it when everything is f***ked up anyway and pressing it is bad for everyone. Arguably worse for the people getting nuked (borrowers) but <cough>

Uuuh Patsy

Hayte wrote: »

The bank really doesn't want to foreclose on you if you have crappy home equity. You won't have a house sure but they are gonna eat a loss and the process is expensive so they need to throw more good money after the bad. Silver lining I guess. Foreclosure is kind of like the red nuclear launch button of the property market. You only bother to look for it when everything is f***ked up anyway and pressing it is bad for everyone. Arguably worse for the people getting nuked (borrowers) but <cough>

But the bank never gave you the money in the first place.. as they dont actually have it...unless they actually gave you the cash...

The may show a loss on their balance sheet, which again isnt actually anything in reality as its just more numbers on the balance sheet (and you even pay for that anyway...remember the bailout). What in effect the Boom Bust cycle does is transfer tangeble physical assets from the people to the bankers at no risk to them..So they start out with nothing and end up with a house.. Its the biggest heist ever and you thinik thats its how the economy is supposed to work... Its sad...

Dempo1

cooperguy wrote: »

Your suggesting that the children of people who take on a mortgage take over repayments when the original people retire? So your committing 10 year olds to the mortgage of their parents? What happens when these children want to buy a house how do they get a mortgage? How do you know what sort of earning potential they will have (even if it wasnt crazily immoral and legally impossible to do!)

Your missing my point completely, I am not suggesting we pass on debts to our children or future generations, i am merely suggesting one of many possible solutions, something the government an banks seem incapable of doing.

Historically a Home was purchased with the view to living in it and perhaps retiring in it having paid off the mortgage. This is traditionally followed by the home being left to siblings. In the mean time the madness of the past decade saw Parent either offering guarantee's to their siblings or in some cases offering the deposits required for same to get on the property ladder. What now is so wrong with siblings perhaps inheriting part of a remaining mortgage? Indeed i would also remind you that death benefit in most cases pays off the mortgage although i agree this along with other considerations would have to be reviewed or changed.

Again, i reiterate and accept this suggestion would not work in all situations and clearly there are a large number of UN sustainable mortgages, in these situations i think the proposal of a five year 2/3 interest payment with a review after 5 years to determine if said mortgages are unsustainable, if they are proven to be so, these families would be offered priority for social housing (Hmmm, perhaps this could be away of using these infamous ghost estates)

Irish Slaves for Europe

Dempo1 wrote: »

Your missing my point completely, I am not suggesting we pass on debts to our children or future generations, i am merely suggesting one of many possible solutions, something the government an banks seem incapable of doing.

Historically a Home was purchased with the view to living in it and perhaps retiring in it having paid off the mortgage. This is traditionally followed by the home being left to siblings. In the mean time the madness of the past decade saw Parent either offering guarantee's to their siblings or in some cases offering the deposits required for same to get on the property ladder. What now is so wrong with siblings perhaps inheriting part of a remaining mortgage? Indeed i would also remind you that death benefit in most cases pays off the mortgage although i agree this along with other considerations would have to be reviewed or changed.

Again, i reiterate and accept this suggestion would not work in all situations and clearly there are a large number of UN sustainable mortgages, in these situations i think the proposal of a five year 2/3 interest payment with a review after 5 years to determine if said mortgages are unsustainable, if they are proven to be so, these families would be offered priority for social housing (Hmmm, perhaps this could be away of using these infamous ghost estates)

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.

Mahatma coat

JAYSUS, People still seem to be clingin to these ridiculously overestimated Property values, cop the F on folks, A lot of the mortgages were Retarded, some of the house values were stupid, yet these people Got Loans, tiered restructuring AFTER a clean sweep is the way to go, Houses in Ireland have been over valued to an obnoxious level, I have a house which was Inherited, when my Uncle died in 94 the house was valued at Seventeen Thousand Pounds, We did nothing of substance to the house, a quick paint and a general tidy, rent it out, off ya go, first off to the 'Tourist market, then to general rental, if anything the house deteriorated over time, Sheds went Stuff got broken all the stuff, but in 2002 Before I came t Australia we had it Valued for an Insurance Renewal, One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Pounds, now we never borrowed against it or Sold it so its still there, and its still a God Awful Sh*tole, thats the reality of the situation facing a lot of people in Ireland right now.

MASS DEFAULT is the best option, Short sharp Shock, the sort thats been touted repeatedly but never actually implemented, Sort out the Banks by Making them Stop and ReExamine their purpose.

Dempo1

Mahatma coat wrote: »

JAYSUS, People still seem to be clingin to these ridiculously overestimated Property values, cop the F on folks, A lot of the mortgages were Retarded, some of the house values were stupid, yet these people Got Loans, tiered restructuring AFTER a clean sweep is the way to go, Houses in Ireland have been over valued to an obnoxious level, I have a house which was Inherited, when my Uncle died in 94 the house was valued at Seventeen Thousand Pounds, We did nothing of substance to the house, a quick paint and a general tidy, rent it out, off ya go, first off to the 'Tourist market, then to general rental, if anything the house deteriorated over time, Sheds went Stuff got broken all the stuff, but in 2002 Before I came t Australia we had it Valued for an Insurance Renewal, One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Pounds, now we never borrowed against it or Sold it so its still there, and its still a God Awful Sh*tole, thats the reality of the situation facing a lot of people in Ireland right now.

MASS DEFAULT is the best option, Short sharp Shock, the sort thats been touted repeatedly but never actually implemented, Sort out the Banks by Making them Stop and ReExamine their purpose.

Novel if not extreme option but in reality not a realistic prospect although i would love nothing better to happen to be honest. All i am proposing is solutions to at least rescue some mortgages. I do however agree a lot of mortgages where retarded in the extreme with ludicrous valuations. The Harsh reality is these absurd valuations will never materialize an here in lies the fundamental requirement. Banks and Mortgage holders have to accept the asset value has decreased by up to 60%, like the NAMA, Take the haircuts and start from scratch!

As a comparison to your situation, i purchased my humble cottage for €50k in 2001, yes needed major restoration. Initial mortgage €36k, did a top of €32k, cottage valued in 2003 @ €110k = doubling of value in two years (absurd), outstanding current mortgage €60k and even if i wanted to i could not give it away. (not that i would want too)

Mahatma coat

See, Im against givin the Banks any more assistance, Mass Action where the banks are unilateraly told to Get FOOOKED Followed by a restructuring.

Banks are nescessary, however they seem to have lost the run of themselves recently, they need a Good kick in the hole as does the rest of the Planet

later12

Mahatma coat wrote: »

MASS DEFAULT is the best option, Short sharp Shock

Can someone please find out who was repsonsible for this awful, moronic term?

Investors are not impressed by alliteration. They are not impressed by mass default, short sharp shock or otherwise.

Mahatma coat

Investors, F*ck Invesators, It matters not a Flyin Fcuk what they Think of the Country besides, Ireland will give me a return on my INVESTMENT, the banks dont Invest in Business the Infest in Business til people lose sight of reality.

The People need to stand up for themselves against the Wave after wave of Lies and Bullsh!t being peddled continually

later12

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Investors, F*ck Invesators, It matters not a Flyin Fcuk what they Think of the Country

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

ilovesleep

Uuuh Patsy wrote: »

The banks would only just love that. How many generations into the future do you think they can can get you to commit to. This is the most disturbing thing I have heard suggested for a long time. I dont even know where to start explaining how bad an idea this is. I hope its sarcastic?

Im not sarcastic. Im very much serious and I think it would have to be done by many who have mortgages. I think it would be a good idea because hopefully it will lead to those who are crippled with mortgage repayments to have a small bit of a disopable income to do what they wish and to keep sane.

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.