Home Reposessed??

gutteruu

cookie1977 wrote: »

Personal insolvency bill is almost signed off so that should provide debtors with greater traction to negotiate with their banks. We'll soon see/hear how that all goes.

I love the way you see it as a tool to negotiate a way to pay the banks less and not as a tool to help struggling people get out of massive debt. Interesting view on it!

cookie1977

gutteruu wrote: »

I love the way you see it as a tool to negotiate a way to pay the banks less and not as a tool to help struggling people get out of massive debt. Interesting view on it!

??? Where did I say that. Now you're just imagining things.

ronan45

gutteruu wrote: »

Don't be stupid. Buy a mansion. All you have to do is stop paying your mortgage and the bank will be obliged to take 50% under this new idea. That way you get a huge expensive property at half the price! Then call MARP and get your payments wrote down to 66% of the interest only for 5 years! You could be living like a king for pittance all legally and if anyone flares up, play the "caring society" card or "can't put the poor kids out on the street" card.

But don't forget its great for everyone including the banks. Maybe in the future, if you want to sell and maybe the house has gone up in value, maybe the bank will get some money back so maybe its a great deal for everyone. Lets spend all the banks/publics money now buying half of every house thats in arrears, as it maybe a fantastic deal in the future.

Woohooo,sounds great
So when is this plan being put into place by the banks !!!! :rolleyes:
Let me guess quarter past never :cool:

Zamboni

Zamboni wrote: »

The funny thing is, if rental prices went beyond a certain level I would have to raise a family in an apartment.
The difference is, I would have nobody to complain to if I simply couldn't afford it.
You are creating inequality between the renter and the mortgagee. I am not.

cookie1977 wrote: »

It's a fair point. I suppose the only thing I can say is that those renting are not exposed to massive debt unlike the other people.

You have absolutely no idea what level of debt private renters have.
And regardless, it is still not grounds for creating an artifical inequality between the two.

cookie1977

Zamboni wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea what level of debt private renters have.
And regardless, it is still not grounds for creating an artifical inequality between the two.

I'd put money that none of them have as much debt as those in arrears and facing eviction/repossession. The personal insolvency bill could also help those renting in financial trouble too.

I'm not for and against some endebted people. I'm for a proper solution to this mess. Trying to skew my opinions such as to make me seem against renters debt is disingenuous on your part and shows poor understanding of what I'm saying.

You seem to prefer correcting my english spelling more than arguing a valid reason for increased repossessions.

Zamboni

cookie1977 wrote: »

I'd put money that none of them have as much debt as those in arrears and facing eviction/repossession. The personal insolvency bill could also help those renting in financial trouble too.

I'm not for and against some endebted people. I'm for a proper solution to this mess. Trying to skew my opinions such as to make me seem against renters debt is disingenuous on your part and shows poor understanding of what I'm saying.

So rather than debate, you will insult me.
Good day sir.

cookie1977

Zamboni wrote: »

So rather than debate, you will insult me.
Good day sir.

Please point out the insult?

Xeyn

Are the repossessions not for btl properties only? Ie. no ones actual residence will be repossessed?

cookie1977

Xeyn wrote: »

Are the repossessions not for btl properties only? Ie. no ones actual residence will be repossessed?

I'd imagine they are primarily for BTL (See below) which is fine but there are lots of cases of PDH/PPR's being repossessed and soon they'll be able to go after more when new legislation comes in.

944 PPR/PDH houses were repossessed last year (combination of legal proceedings and voluntary surrenders) up to the end of September 2012

Actually only 414 BTL's were repossessed last year up to the end of September 2012. that's very low in my mind. I'm surprised it's not more than the PPR/PDH properties.

http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/MortgageArrearsandRepossessionStatisticsQ32012.aspx

jmayo

OMD wrote: »

Most economists did not see it coming. To expect people with no economics training to see something economists didn't is expecting too much.

Ehh and where did most of these economists work ?
In particular the most high profile ones worked for the vested interests.
Or perhaps you have forgotten all those appearances on TV/Radio and in print by the likes of Dan McLaughlin ?

Jesus God it didn't take economics training to cop on that paying more for an apartment (per sq foot) on the outskirts of Dublin (or some other cities/big towns) than in most major European capital cities was not sane.

And don't bother even getting me started on buying apartments, townhouses or even houses in villages in the likes of Leitrim, Roscommon, Sligo, Mayo, etc where emigration/migration had been the norm for a century and the only work around was in building/supplying yet more new property. :mad:

It was apparent to anyone with an ounce of cop on that we just could not continue building more property and when that stopped there would be a huge chunk of the population unemployed.
Remember warnings about us losing our competitiveness and losing manufacturing, even service, jobs ?

Also it was obvious that the banks could not keep the level of mortgage lending going to keep a cycle of ever increasing price rises unless they started dishing out 120% mortgages ?

A lot of people chose not to see the signs.
And a fair chunk of people did so because they saw others getting rich, on paper mostly, and they wanted a slice of the action.

Anybody that gave a different opinion had to be discredited.
Morgan Kelly was laughed at. McWillimas was the butt of jokes.
Remember all the cr** about talking down the economy, or to put it more correctly talking down house prices.
Remember the flack Ricard Curran got for his TV program "Future Shock - Property Crash" even though one could argue the market had already turned at that stage.

OMD wrote: »

Most who saw it coming were wrong in the timing of the end.

The big thing that any of us whiners, doomsayers or suicide candidates (to use aherns parlance) were wrong about was how bad the subprime crisis in the states would be and how far the rot would go into the banking system or how badly run the Irish banks had been and how excessive their exposure to dodgy developer lending really was.
The end had been envisaged for some time.

Anyone who had looked at UK in the 80s or Japan in the 80s could see a major property burst coming.
The talk of a soft landing, which AFAIK had never happened to a major bubble of any size, was just utter cra*.

cookie1977

I agree with a lot you're saying. But not that it was obvious to all. If it was why did the majority keep buying then? Why didn't we all wake up and just stop in advance of the collapse and say enough is enough?

who_ru

cookie1977 wrote: »

If it was why did the majority keep buying then? Why didn't we all wake up and just stop in advance of the collapse and say enough is enough?

renting is/was a dirty word in Ireland - 'ownership' of property, regardless of how distant to your workplace, family etc was more desirable.

bidiots

cookie1977 wrote: »

I agree with a lot you're saying. But not that it was obvious to all. If it was why did the majority keep buying then? Why didn't we all wake up and just stop in advance of the collapse and say enough is enough?

Plain and simple greed. Keeping up with the Jones and all that.

cookie1977

bidiots wrote: »

Plain and simple greed. Keeping up with the Jones and all that.

Everyone? Come on you cant honestly believe that do you?

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

I agree with a lot you're saying. But not that it was obvious to all. If it was why did the majority keep buying then? Why didn't we all wake up and just stop in advance of the collapse and say enough is enough?

Re: obviousness, I remember that back in 2006 McWilliams's "The Pope Children" (the pop-economy book about property bubble among others) was piled high in every bookshop and airport, and for me it only crystallised what I already knew for years from other media and plain reason. I was too young and undecided to have specific interest in property back then, it was only the info I got through osmosis so to speak (and from the observation that if a two bed townhouse with no garden in our estate sells for €530k something must be very wrong).

To be oblivious to it you'd have to have your fingers firmly in your ears, looking up to your cousins flipping houses and lecturing you about the ladder...

D3PO

jmayo wrote: »

Anybody that gave a different opinion had to be discredited.
Morgan Kelly was laughed at. McWillimas was the butt of jokes.
.

for balance its also worth pointing out that McWilliams despite calling that a bubble was forming himself bought during the boom years.

So before you judge people that bought in that period you should ask yourself why they did it when even those who saw what was going on convinced themselves to make similar transactions. Not everybody bought to make a quick buck or to keep up with the jones's and most of who did buy are happily servicing their mortgages at the terms agreed originally with no issues.

dont tar everybody with the same brush.

cookie1977

mhge wrote: »

Re: obviousness, I remember that back in 2006 McWilliams's "The Pope Children" (the pop-economy book about property bubble among others) was piled high in every bookshop and airport, and for me it only crystallised what I already knew for years from other media and plain reason. I was too young and undecided to have specific interest in property back then, it was only the info I got through osmosis so to speak (and from the observation that if a two bed townhouse with no garden in our estate sells for €530k something must be very wrong).

To be oblivious to it you'd have to have your fingers firmly in your ears, looking up to your cousins flipping houses and lecturing you about the ladder...

Honestly I know people will disagree but many were not as knowledgeable and many also felt they had not choice. People had been hearing of the collapse for years but it hadn't come. Wrongly now we know but people were afraid if they didn't get on the so called ladder soon they could be priced out. Hindsight is great (and many people did know it was not the time to buy) but not everyone had that thought back then. I'm not talking about people flipping houses or BTL buyers. I'm taking about families buying their homes to live in or as a starter home. All of these were not greedy nor where they looking to make a quick buck.

jmayo

cookie1977 wrote: »

I agree with a lot you're saying. But not that it was obvious to all. If it was why did the majority keep buying then? Why didn't we all wake up and just stop in advance of the collapse and say enough is enough?

Do you understand a bubble ?
It was no use stopping in advance of the collapse (in 2007/2008).
It is then way too late.
The time to stop things was when it really started ramping up back in 2002/2003.

Instead we had government positively stoking the fires, we had banks flush with dosh firing it out left right and centre (and not just in Ireland but around the world).
Then we had uncontrolled lending, the continuation of ridiculous tax schemes to encourage property investment.
Then we had banks offering 100% mortgages which was a major sign common sense had left the building.

As bidiots said a lot of people got greedy.
They wanted the new car(s) and not just any old car but a BMW, a 4x4, etc.
They wanted to be like some people they knew with investment property or foreign property.
And shure weren't the banks just lashing the money out, so why not go for it.

Some buyers were fearful and felt due to our poor rental sector/laws and the fact they were starting families meant they needed to buy at any cost.
These are the ones I feel sorry for.

The ones I feel absolutely no sorrow for are the ones who were young free and single, but yet bought these apartments and houses in the middle of nowhere just to get on the ladder
They had no pressing need to buy.
They just wanted to get on the gravy train to riches.
Why else would a young single 20 something only working a few years have bought an apartment, townhouse or house in the ars*hole of nowhere ?

Their plan was to sell up in a few years for a handsome the profit, move back near family/friends opr to more desirable area and buy a nice proper house.

Then we had the would be landlords and the trophy house hunters who wanted the stables, etc.

Peanut2011

cookie1977 wrote: »

I'm not talking about people flipping houses or BTL buyers. I'm taking about families buying their homes to live in or as a starter home. All of these were not greedy nor where they looking to make a quick buck.

See this is the difference that the pro-eviction advocates here are forgetting. Anyone who bought BLT and who can not service their mortgages should lose the houses. I have no issue with that, that is not a family home and they gambled on their investment.

It's the family homes that I have an issue with. Again, no issue with banks getting tough on the ones that simply refuse to work with them and don't want to pay.

The problem is the ones that are trying everything but simply can't, more should be done by the banks to come to workable solution, even if it means freezing the part of the mortgage until such time the people can pay more again or the house is up for sale. The frozen part gets first dibs on any sale amount and anything left over refunded to the owner.

No debt write down, no forgiveness but person left with the roof over their head and in good mental health and bank gets as much money as possible back.

jmayo

D3PO wrote: »

for balance its also worth pointing out that McWilliams despite calling that a bubble was forming himself bought during the boom years.

So before you judge people that bought in that period you should ask yourself why they did it when even those who saw what was going on convinced themselves to make similar transactions. Not everybody bought to make a quick buck or to keep up with the jones's and most of who did buy are happily servicing their mortgages at the terms agreed originally with no issues.

dont tar everybody with the same brush.

Ehh there is a difference between someone with the wherewithal to afford something even if in a price bubble buying and someone who is going in and getting a 100% mortgage.

I know people who knew it was a bubble but yet still went out and bought something that they knew was overpriced.
But get this little nugget they could afford it.
They weren't over stretching themselves financially and it was buying something that only came on the market by chance and would probably not be available again.
This was particularly true for farmers.

From my knowledge of mr mcwilliams, and I might be corrected on this, he was also liquidating some of his foreign investments, property included, in certain countries and moving to others where the market was not, or less of, a bubble.

So maybe he wasn't as dumb as your are hinting here.

kunst nugget

cookie1977 wrote: »

I agree with a lot you're saying. But not that it was obvious to all. If it was why did the majority keep buying then? Why didn't we all wake up and just stop in advance of the collapse and say enough is enough?

The writing is a bit goofy but the graphs in this piece are a good at showing how bubbles work:

http://steadfastfinances.com/2009/11/14/the-psychology-of-bubbles-using-hindsight-to-examine-why-we-bought-into-the-hype/

Also, other things to take into account are social psychological issues like the greater fool theory (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-solin/the-greater-fool-theory-a_b_1300952.html) and herd behaviour (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/03/rational-herdin.html)

cookie1977

kunst nugget wrote: »

The writing is a bit goofy but the graphs in this piece are a good at showing how bubbles work:

http://steadfastfinances.com/2009/11/14/the-psychology-of-bubbles-using-hindsight-to-examine-why-we-bought-into-the-hype/

Also, other things to take into account are social psychological issues like the greater fool theory (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-solin/the-greater-fool-theory-a_b_1300952.html) and herd behaviour (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/03/rational-herdin.html)

but it doesn't mean all buyers were greedy buyers

Xeyn

Clearly not all buyers were greedy but id imagine the truly unfortunate buyers are in the minority.
If you bought for many hundreds of thousands and had no contingency plan is that enough of a reason to be allowed debt forgiveness?
There are certainly plenty of people however who are paying for others mistakes.
Ie. People who genuinely bought a family home and lost their job despite their very best efforts due to the financial meltdown.
A lot of people however just want to blame others and have their debts written off.
Its not a black and white situation clearly.

kunst nugget

cookie1977 wrote: »

but it doesn't mean all buyers were greedy buyers

Some were driven by greed and some weren't but almost all were being extremely myopic.

Here is an interesting article in Forbes about what they see as bubbles getting ready to pop:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/03/greatest-real-estate-bubble-in-modern-history-has-yet-to-really-burst/

Here is a rebuttal from someone in Brisbane (highlighted in the original article) with two comments which are depressingly familiar and could have been written by Irishmen back in 2005/6:
http://propertyupdate.com.au/bursting-harrys-property-bubble/

The fact is that these bubbles happen everywhere and most people tend not to see them when they are in the thick of it (house prices never fall, solid investment, yadda, yadda) and as people have pointed out anyone that has a contrarian view on events is normally dismissed completely.

Anyone that bought a 'starter home' was trying to take full advantage of the 'greater fool' theory whether they consciously knew it or not.

bidiots

cookie1977 wrote: »

Everyone? Come on you cant honestly believe that do you?

Buying something that is much much more than 4 times a single salary? Either greed or a sheer lack of basic maths. Beds have been made, but we all have to lie in them now. Great little country eh?!

D3PO

jmayo wrote: »

From my knowledge of mr mcwilliams, and I might be corrected on this, he was also liquidating some of his foreign investments, property included, in certain countries and moving to others where the market was not, or less of, a bubble.

So maybe he wasn't as dumb as your are hinting here.

i wasnt saying he was dumb just wanted to create a level of balance. You were insinuating that only dumb people bought during the boom that everybody else could see it. Thats not entirely true.

90% plus of those that bought for a miriade of reasons have fully performing mortgages

I agree if you cant afford then you restructure, if you still cant afford then you should get repod. Carrying an unsustainable mortgage with heads in the sand expecting a miracle solution doenst help anybody bank or mortgaee.

that said there is a subset of people not currently helped by their current deals with their banks i.e they are paying x % of mortgages but it doesnt cover the full interest not to mind capital. These people are just prolonging the pain and I think there is merit in what McWilliams suggested a while back in these people doing a debt / equity swap with the bank.

you still can then force those not paying or unlikely to get out of thier predicament and BTL's not performing to be repod and provide some level of housing market stability whilst minimising social housing costs and bank losses at the same time.

I think people are completely misreading what Cookie has been saying. Hes not for any debt forgiveness, hes just advocating in applicable circumstances something like what McWilliams suggested. I can understand why some people find this unpalatable as why should these people get "help" but it has a lot of merits from a sociatal perspective and more importantly financially.

ive not done a CBA on it but if it were cheaper to repo all these houses and then house these people then trust me there would be a larger push to repo them.

repo them and make these people carry the outstanding debt and Id bet a dollar to a dime that most would fall under the thresholds to be socially housed at the taxpayers cost.

Its a maths game after all lads unfortunately safety in numbers is at play here which means that there are those opportunists taking advantage of it. but dont think most people are like that. Most of these people are in unquantifiable levels of stress, and are far removed from the high life.

i agree those paying nothing repo them but those doing their best with some way of getting out of the mire should be assisted withotu getting a hand out.

balance lads its not a once size fits all situation

D3PO

Xeyn wrote: »

Clearly not all buyers were greedy but id imagine the truly unfortunate buyers are in the minority.
If you bought for many hundreds of thousands and had no contingency plan is that enough of a reason to be allowed debt forgiveness?
.

No its not. But if people read again I don't recall anybody here saying write off peoples debt.

If they want that go apply for bankruptcy and get it discharged down the line. Cookie certainly hasn't said that hes jsut called for a multi tiered approcah including repos, dept equity swaps and more creative deals to be done with the banks that doesnt mean the person gets anything off but gets into a manageable position whereby a stable housing market can be created and also a situation that wont be to the detriment of the local economy by removing peoples spending power.

cookie1977

bidiots wrote: »

Buying something that is much much more than 4 times a single salary? Either greed or a sheer lack of basic maths. Beds have been made, but we all have to lie in them now. Great little country eh?!

In my opinion you're generalising.

kunst nugget wrote: »

Some were driven by greed and some weren't but almost all were being extremely myopic.

Here is an interesting article in Forbes about what they see as bubbles getting ready to pop:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/03/greatest-real-estate-bubble-in-modern-history-has-yet-to-really-burst/

Here is a rebuttal from someone in Brisbane (highlighted in the original article) with two comments which are depressingly familiar and could have been written by Irishmen back in 2005/6:
http://propertyupdate.com.au/bursting-harrys-property-bubble/

The fact is that these bubbles happen everywhere and most people tend not to see them when they are in the thick of it (house prices never fall, solid investment, yadda, yadda) and as people have pointed out anyone that has a contrarian view on events is normally dismissed completely.

Anyone that bought a 'starter home' was trying to take full advantage of the 'greater fool' theory whether they consciously knew it or not.

If it was all so clear to everyone then bubbles would only happen once as we'd all be wise to them after that. They're not, they're cyclical.

Xeyn wrote: »

Clearly not all buyers were greedy but id imagine the truly unfortunate buyers are in the minority.
If you bought for many hundreds of thousands and had no contingency plan is that enough of a reason to be allowed debt forgiveness?
There are certainly plenty of people however who are paying for others mistakes.
Ie. People who genuinely bought a family home and lost their job despite their very best efforts due to the financial meltdown.
A lot of people however just want to blame others and have their debts written off.
Its not a black and white situation clearly.

Does the above though not mean that the banks were as foolish too? Should they then not take some of the blame and the cost for sticking there head in the sand and not doing due diligence? After the crash and the banks were examined it was found that some banks did not even have the deeds of properties they'd given mortagages on.

I'm not endorsing debt forgiveness in anyway as I do not agree with it other then in the situation where a family is so in debt and poor that their house is repossessed and then subsequently sold. The difference in the sale price and outstanding debt should be written off or down if repayments on the outstanding debt result in almost penal servitude for said family. That is the only case I envisage debt forgiveness. But I dont think this idea has specifically made it in to the personal insolvency bill unfortunately. It's worded such that debt can be written off as part of any deal but not what I've suggested.

D3PO

cookie1977 wrote: »

In my opinion you're generalising.



If it was all so clear to everyone then bubbles would only happen once as we'd all be wise to them after that. They're not, they're cyclical.



Does the above though not mean that the banks were as foolish too? Should they then not take some of the blame and the cost for sticking there head in the sand and not doing due diligence? After the crash and the banks were examined it was found that some banks did not even have the deeds of properties they'd given mortagages on.

I'm not endorsing debt forgiveness in anyway as I do not agree with it other then in the situation where a family is so in debt and poor that their house is repossessed and then subsequently sold. The difference in the sale price and outstanding debt should be written off or down if repayments on the outstanding debt result in almost penal servitude for said family. That is the only case I envisage debt forgiveness. But I dont think this idea has specifically made it in to the personal insolvency bill unfortunately. It's worded such that debt can be written off as part of any deal but not what I've suggested.

i agree with a lot of what you said BUT no the banks shouldnt take any of the cost. By putting that in your post I see why people think you are advocating debt forgiveness.

we dont do non recourse mortgages. Are the bank partly to blame yes are they responsible no.

Xeyn

cookie1977 wrote: »

Does the above though not mean that the banks were as foolish too? Should they then not take some of the blame and the cost for sticking there head in the sand and not doing due diligence? After the crash and the banks were examined it was found that some banks did not even have the deeds of properties they'd given mortagages on.

I'm not endorsing debt forgiveness in anyway as I do not agree with it other then in the situation where a family is so in debt and poor that their house is repossessed and then subsequently sold. The difference in the sale price and outstanding debt should be written off or down if repayments on the outstanding debt result in almost penal servitude for said family. That is the only case I envisage debt forgiveness. But I dont think this idea has specifically made it in to the personal insolvency bill unfortunately. It's worded such that debt can be written off as part of any deal but not what I've suggested.

Ahh without a doubt. The banks are every bit as guilty if not more so.
And Im not stating that they should be let off the hook or should be allowed to refuse restructuring packages that would save a family from becoming homeless. Not at all. All im saying is that an all inclusive deal for debt forgiveness shouldnt be an option.
People like you state should certainly be helped out. But those who dont bother trying to pay back their debts and who put themselves and family at risk by being greedy and / or not realistically and reasonably planning for the future shouldnt simply be let off the hook, which i know is not what you were insinuating.
Just a general thought.