Home Reposessed??

cookie1977

D3PO wrote: »

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.

When I say cost I mean mcwilliams idea about 50% of home goes to bank for sale in 20 years while 50% of home is paid as a mortgage by family. This option is in the event that no other viable option can be found (lengthened term, off set capital and some interest for up to 5yrs etc) but that repossession is not necessary either.

D3PO

cookie1977 wrote: »

When I say cost I mean mcwilliams idea about 50% of home goes to bank for sale in 20 years while 50% of home is paid as a mortgage by family. This option is in the event that no other viable option can be found (lengthened term, off set capital and some interest for up to 5yrs etc) but that repossession is not necessary either.

you need to be careful with how your word it then. I agree this debt equity swap should be part of a multi pronged approach to resolve the current endebtedness BUT there should be no cost to the bank

i.e they take a 50% equity on the mortgage and its sold in 20 years time if the market hasnt recovered by then any deficit should still then be the responsibility of the mortgage holder

kunst nugget

cookie1977 wrote: »

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.

Really? Recession might be seen as cyclical but property bubbles, such as the one we've gone through, wouldn't be seen as recurring events.

cookie1977

kunst nugget wrote: »

Really? Recession might be seen as cyclical but property bubbles, such as the one we've gone through, wouldn't be seen as recurring events.

I'd disagree

cookie1977

D3PO wrote: »

you need to be careful with how your word it then. I agree this debt equity swap should be part of a multi pronged approach to resolve the current endebtedness BUT there should be no cost to the bank

i.e they take a 50% equity on the mortgage and its sold in 20 years time if the market hasnt recovered by then any deficit should still then be the responsibility of the mortgage holder

Well the cost is that they're not getting the cash quicker which at present they would like to bolster their books. So it is costing them in that sense

kunst nugget

cookie1977 wrote: »

I'd disagree

Show me then.

Xeyn

Real estate bubbles are something that is seen periodically. Not once off.

cookie1977

kunst nugget wrote: »

Show me then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_cycle

D3PO

Xeyn wrote: »

Real estate bubbles are something that is seen periodically. Not once off.

I disagree. Show me when the lasthousing bubble in Ireland was ?

recessions are cyclical housing bubbles are not.

Xeyn

cookie1977 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_cycle

and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_bubble

kunst nugget

Xeyn wrote: »

Real estate bubbles are something that is seen periodically. Not once off.

Where? Japan? Finland?

Xeyn

Well the fact that people think Ireland is immune to trends that occur all over the world was clearly part of the problem.

kunst nugget

Xeyn wrote: »

Well the fact that people think Ireland is immune to trends that occur all over the world was clearly part of the problem.

Every country that goes through a property bubble thinks it's immune to worldwide trends. Ireland was no different.

Xeyn

kunst nugget wrote: »

Every country that goes through a property bubble thinks it's immune to worldwide trends. Ireland was no different.

You are quite right, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the property market has long been regarded as a to have a cyclical nature.
Ireland may have been in the infancy stages of an emerging economy when we went through our boom which might make it slightly different in that it has relatively no massive fluctuation in its real estate history but the history is there for all to see around the world in just about every region.

kunst nugget

Xeyn wrote: »

You are quite right, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the property market has long been regarded as a to have a cyclical nature.
Ireland may have been in the infancy stages of an emerging economy when we went through our boom which might make it slightly different in that it has relatively no massive fluctuation in its real estate history but the history is there for all to see around the world in just about every region.

I never said the property market isn't considered cyclical in nature but a bubble is not something that is seen as a recurring event. If you can show me examples of a country that has gone through repeated property bubbles I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

cookie1977

kunst nugget wrote: »

I never said the property market isn't considered cyclical in nature but a bubble is not something that is seen as a recurring event. If you can show me examples of a country that has gone through repeated property bubbles I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graph-house-prices-1975-2006.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_bubble

The UK Peaks and troughs x2 and possible another one soon. Well see.

I also dont necessarily understand why you agree they're cyclical but not a bubble. It seems symantics to me

kunst nugget

cookie1977 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graph-house-prices-1975-2006.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_bubble

The UK Peaks and troughs x2 and possible another one soon. Well see.

I also dont necessarily understand why you agree they're cyclical but not a bubble. It seems symantics to me

It's hardly semantics. A bubble is a seismic event which sees prices escalate and then tumble at unprecedented levels which is completely out of character with the normal boom and slump of your standard property market.

In relation to the UK:
UK house prices drop 1% in 2012

The lender's monthly snapshot of the housing market showed the annual rate of movement remained in negative territory for the 10th month in succession, and the 1% drop over the year reversed the 1% rise seen in 2011.

While this probably isn't great news, it would suggest to me that, 4 years into their recession with their prices remaining relatively static overall, they probably aren't going to have the same horrendous crash that we had.

cookie1977

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's hardly semantics. A bubble is a seismic event which sees prices escalate and then tumble at unprecedented levels which is completely out of character with the normal boom and slump of your standard property market.

In relation to the UK:
UK house prices drop 1% in 2012



While this probably isn't great news, it would suggest to me that, 4 years into their recession with their prices remaining relatively static overall, they probably aren't going to have the same horrendous crash that we had.

You'd agree the UK had a property bubble in the late 1980's

You dont think the seismic increase in property prices from 79-80 (prices grew 40% and the subsequent drop from 80-81 (prices dropped by about 30%) wasn't seismic for those people?

We wont know about the current one for a while yet so we can only speculate. Many people in the link you posted think it is a bubble and we all know about self fulfilling prophecies. Think oil prices and our own bubble.

kunst nugget

cookie1977 wrote: »

You'd agree the UK had a property bubble in the late 1980's

You dont think the seismic increase in property prices from 79-80 (prices grew 40% and the subsequent drop from 80-81 (prices dropped by about 30%) wasn't seismic for those people?

We wont know about the current one for a while yet so we can only speculate.

I didn't say anything about the UK property bubble in the 80s and its effects because I didn't think I needed to - it's common knowledge. You were speculating on a second property bubble in the UK so I was just pointing out that at the moment the evidence doesn't seem to be there to suggest that there is a bubble that is going to burst.

kunst nugget

cookie1977 wrote: »

Many people in the link you posted think it is a bubble and we all know about self fulfilling prophecies. Think oil prices and our own bubble.

Are you suggesting we talked ourselves into bursting the bubble? I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at with oil prices…

cookie1977

kunst nugget wrote: »

I didn't say anything about the UK property bubble in the 80s and its effects because I didn't think I needed to - it's common knowledge. You were speculating on a second property bubble in the UK so I was just pointing out that at the moment the evidence doesn't seem to be there to suggest that there is a bubble that is going to burst.

Yes but you asked for proof of more than one property bubble. I'm showing you that the UK has had at least 2 since the 70's and they "may" be in one now

cookie1977

kunst nugget wrote: »

Are you suggesting we talked ourselves into bursting the bubble? I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at with oil prices…

No.

cookie1977

Here's another example of multiple housing bubbles in the USA:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/business/06view.html?_r=0

Two such land bubbles stand out. The first, in the 1830s, was associated with federal distributions to state banks and the loss of fiscal restraint that had been imposed by the short-lived Second Bank of the United States. People began to think farm prices could never fall. As an article in a publication called The Cultivator said in 1836: “Who ever heard of a man buying and selling a farm at the same or a lessened price? It is so well understood that the seller is to have more than he gave, that it has almost become a settled principle in the purchase of real estate.”

The bubble burst with the Panic of 1837, and was followed by the first great depression in United States history, from 1837 to 1843.



A second bubble, in the 1850s, was encouraged by an 1852 act of Congress making land warrants tradable. It burst with the Panic of 1857. Some historians — notably James L. Huston of Oklahoma State University — say they think that the resulting tensions escalated sectional animosities and helped precipitate the Civil War, which ended the depression.


(The Third)The entire 20th century appears to have had only one farmland bubble of national significance — it occurred in the 1970s. Its causes were complex, but it seems to have been accompanied by a newly common belief that the human population would soon become excessive.

And the one now in the US of course.

jmayo

Peanut2011 wrote: »

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.

I think most people, myself and those others who some think want to turf everyone out, would have no problem with mortgage restructuring so long as we are not talking about someone getting debt forgiveness and debt write downs all the while they get to continue enjoying sole ownership of their propperty.
This is where all the confusion is around here I believe.

D3PO wrote: »

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.

No I am not if you read my follow on post.
But a hell of a lot of the ones who did buy decided to ignore advise or views that warned of dangers ahead.
And IMHO there were some who you could label as dumb as ditch water if they seriously thought investing, and yes I am talking about investing, in someplaces was a good idea.

D3PO wrote: »

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.

Exactly.

D3PO wrote: »

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.

This should already have been well under way.

D3PO wrote: »

I disagree. Show me when the lasthousing bubble in Ireland was ?

recessions are cyclical housing bubbles are not.

I would reckon Ireland has never had a housing bubble before because we weren't rich enough or rather hadn't access to enough cheap credit.
Other countries richer than us have had numerous bubbles.
You could even say the UK had one in 80s and another in last decade.
Of course they were not of the scale of ours, which was ridiculous.

faceman

FWIW McWilliams is pro debt forgiveness.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2012/09/06/lets-forgive-debt-before-the-unforgivable-happens

cookie1977

faceman wrote: »

FWIW McWilliams is pro debt forgiveness.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2012/09/06/lets-forgive-debt-before-the-unforgivable-happens

I prefer his other idea to be honest (published after that so maybe he's had second thoughts??) as I'd be worried about how they calculate who warrants debt forgiveness but as I said if someone has been evicted and their house repossessed and sold then any debt still outstanding should be looked at for debt forgiveness if necessary.

Reading the comments on the article too show some decent ideas. If there is to be debt forgiveness then the debtor cant retain the property (i'd agree with that as it's along the lines I've mentioned above) plus it does force the banks to take ownership of a situation they have been involved in.

gutteruu

Figures obtained by the Evening Herald show that there was just 10 evictions carried out in Dublin in 2012 – one of the lowest figures in years.

106,000 mortgages in arrears. 20,000 people are more than 2 years behind and they repossesed 10 in Dublin.

Even during the Boom I bet the figures were multiples of this. So its almost impossible to lose your home? So why pay?

During this thread I think I have come to the realisation that paying and going along with it all is a fools game. These "struggling families" that want help will just elect the people who will give them what they want. The same way they elected FF to prop up their property bubble ruining the country, they will elect more monkeys to give them more of what they want. So why pay? Why struggle for no gain. Why be the fool to do the honest thing and pay my mortgage when someone in the exact same situation who isn't paying gets a handout, oh sorry "assistance from the bank".

beaner88

I felt sick when I read that story earlier. And these are supposed to be the poor victims who live under the threat of being "homeless". **** the lot of them.

D3PO

gutteruu wrote: »

106,000 mortgages in arrears. 20,000 people are more than 2 years behind and they repossesed 10 in Dublin.

Im not sure how sensationalist that figure is. I believe the definition for being in arrears includes all restructured mortgages.

so those who extended terms and are still paying capital and interest, those paying interest only and those paying interest and some capital although not the agreed amout are bundled into those figures.

all the above categories are people that in my eyes are doing their best to service their debt are in sustainable positions and shouldnt be in the repo discussion.

however anybody whos 2 years behind on payments, realistically they will never service their debt. Repo the damn houses now.

cookie1977

D3PO wrote: »

however anybody whos 2 years behind on payments, realistically they will never service their debt. Repo the damn houses now.

The question I'd ask is have all these people been spoken too and have the banks tried to put deals in place? If so and they've all failed then fine, look at repossession but I doubt they have.