Home Reposessed??

D3PO

cookie1977 wrote: »

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.

if they havent thats their own issue. I mean if they are irresponsible to the degree they over stretched themselves int he first place thats one thing, if they then compound that by not bothering to talk to their bank and just let things get worse and worse quite frankly they arent responsible enough to own a toaster not to mind a property. I have zero sympathy for people like this.

i doubt any bank has just ignored two years of missed payments anyway.

cookie1977

The following is solely about PDH/PPR and not BTL!

What's puzzling me is that according to the http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/MortgageArrearsandRepossessionStatisticsQ32012.aspx

There were 944 properties (PDH/PPR) in the banks’ possession at the beginning of Q3. A total of 154 properties were taken into possession by lenders during the quarter, of which 47 were repossessed on foot of a Court Order, while the remaining 107 were voluntarily surrendered or abandoned.
During the quarter 153 properties were disposed of, while one property in possession was reclassified as a BTL property. As a result, lenders were in possession of 944 PDH properties at end-September 2012.

Why if they've been repossessed aren't they selling more houses then? This doesn't match with some peoples desire/prediction that repossessions will lead to cheaper houses.

On the foot of that looking at some of the central bank stats the deals being done seem primarily to be interest only deals which to me is kicking the can down the road and not actually sorting things out.



This is born out to me by the following comment:

Of the total stock of 81,683 restructured PDH mortgages at end-September, 43,742 were not in arrears. The remaining 37,941 restructured accounts were in arrears of varying lengths.

There's no subsequent breakdown of what number of the 37,941 restructured accounts in arrears are new arrears but to me that's very worrying.

If the types of restructuring going on are not leading to proper outcomes for the owners then something else has to be looked at as it seems as it is to not be achieving much.

Arrears are still increasing and the banks themselves dont seem to be in a rush to sell the repossessed houses they have so surely there's a better solution??

cookie1977

It's a pity the central bank dont have numbers on mortgages that have been restructured more than once. Surely they are a growing number based on the above stats.

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

Why if they've been repossessed aren't they selling more houses then? This doesn't match with some peoples desire/prediction that repossessions will lead to cheaper houses.

They are not selling them as not to depress the market. The whole avoidance of repossessions has nothing to do with the welfare bill as someone suggested above, it's to avoid releasing them into the market. They would repossess all failed BTLs otherwise. If they have no choice but to repossess, they will sit on them instead.

cookie1977

mhge wrote: »

They are not selling them as not to depress the market. The whole avoidance of repossessions has nothing to do with the welfare bill as someone suggested above, it's to avoid releasing them into the market. They would repossess all failed BTLs otherwise. If they have no choice but to repossess, they will sit on them instead.

Then surely a split ala mcwilliams of 50% mortgage payments by mortgagee and 50% ownership for sale in 20yrs by bank is a better option then no money at all, no?

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

Then surely a split ala mcwilliams of 50% mortgage payments by mortgagee and 50% ownership for sale in 20yrs by bank is a better option then no money at all, no?

In terms of natural market, no. They may be renting them out also, it doesn't say.

cookie1977

It doesn't say but lets be honest. That would require the banks to be pro active...no? I'd wager they're not.

I also dont understand what you mean by the natural market.

Option1 sit and wait on property till time is right to sell (no cash generated)
Option2 sit on property with promise to sell in 20yrs while getting cash on 50% of mortgage (cash income with lets be honest almost guaranteed price rise in 20yrs)

strandroad

cookie1977 wrote: »

It doesn't say but lets be honest. That would require the banks to be pro active...no? I'd wager they're not.

I also dont understand what you mean by the natural market.

Option1 sit and wait on property till time is right to sell (no cash generated)
Option2 sit on property with promise to sell in 20yrs while getting cash on 50% of mortgage (cash income with lets be honest almost guaranteed price rise in 20yrs)

False dichotomy.

cookie1977

mhge wrote: »

False dichotomy.

Then what are the actual options for the bank. Because clearly they are not selling them and I've seen no evidence (other then NAMA) of banks renting out properties they've repossessed unless you can find it.

StillWaters

To my knowledge banks are renting out houses, and have hired specialist teams to manage this.

It makes much more sense for them to have a healthy rental stream from distressed /repo'd houses than to crystallise losses at the bottom of a Market.

Those on here rubbing their hands waiting for families to be evicted so they can get their cheap house should sit on those hands.

beaner88

StillWaters wrote: »

To my knowledge banks are renting out houses, and have hired specialist teams to manage this.

It makes much more sense for them to have a healthy rental stream from distressed /repo'd houses than to crystallise losses at the bottom of a Market.

Those on here rubbing their hands waiting for families to be evicted so they can get their cheap house should sit on those hands.

You can't move the market indefinitely. Their losses will be the same whatever they do. The state and banks can restrict the market and we will continue to have miniscule amounts of property transactions for a decade or two but see what happens prices when a normal level of transactions resumes.

StillWaters

beaner88 wrote: »

You can't move the market indefinitely. Their losses will be the same whatever they do. The state and banks can restrict the market and we will continue to have miniscule amounts of property transactions for a decade or two but see what happens prices when a normal level of transactions resumes.

How will their losses be the same regardless of what they do? That presumption is based on Ireland having no growth for years and staying at the bottom of this economic cycle. Noone believes that.

jmayo

mhge wrote: »

They are not selling them as not to depress the market. The whole avoidance of repossessions has nothing to do with the welfare bill as someone suggested above, it's to avoid releasing them into the market. They would repossess all failed BTLs otherwise. If they have no choice but to repossess, they will sit on them instead.

This appears to be the case.
It is not in the banks interest to cuase prices to drop further and it is not in the interest of the biggest stakeholder in Irish banks and in Irish property, i.e. the state.

beaner88 wrote: »

You can't move the market indefinitely. Their losses will be the same whatever they do. The state and banks can restrict the market and we will continue to have miniscule amounts of property transactions for a decade or two but see what happens prices when a normal level of transactions resumes.

This is the thing we are nowhere near a normal property market be it in prices, for most locations, or in level of transactions.
Everyone knows there is huge stockpile of property that needs to be moved on but it is sitting in limbo.
Future buyers can't get lending.
Future buyers believe the prices are being kept at a false level due to bank inaction and government interference.

StillWaters wrote: »

How will their losses be the same regardless of what they do? That presumption is based on Ireland having no growth for years and staying at the bottom of this economic cycle. Noone believes that.

So do you think we are going to domestically grow in the next few years ?

BTW do you think Irish property prices will "recover" to their boom levels anytime in the next 20/30 years ?

nacimroc

jmayo wrote: »

This is the thing we are nowhere near a normal property market be it in prices, for most locations, or in level of transactions.
Everyone knows there is huge stockpile of property that needs to be moved on but it is sitting in limbo.
Future buyers can't get lending.
Future buyers believe the prices are being kept at a false level due to bank inaction and government interference.

Speaking as someone who bought this year and knows a few couple's who bought or tried to buy this year, lending is not at issue at all. That's a popular myth (ish). The single biggest problem is the lack of properties for sale. We spent a year or 2 trying to buy houses that people only had on the market to keep the banks happy and refused to sell. The other properties are the same old ****e that was for sale during the boom that nobody wanted then either.

The market is dead mainly because of the lack of properties and somewhat to do with false prices IMO. They need to start feeding the market or it will die completely. More houses means more purchases, means higher prices, means more properties etc.

Oh, and the house I bought was a repo'd one :eek::eek:

Peanut2011

nacimroc wrote: »

Speaking as someone who bought this year and knows a few couple's who bought or tried to buy this year, lending is not at issue at all. That's a popular myth (ish). The single biggest problem is the lack of properties for sale. We spent a year or 2 trying to buy houses that people only had on the market to keep the banks happy and refused to sell. The other properties are the same old ****e that was for sale during the boom that nobody wanted then either.

The market is dead mainly because of the lack of properties and somewhat to do with false prices IMO. They need to start feeding the market or it will die completely. More houses means more purchases, means higher prices, means more properties etc.

Speaking as someone who knows of people buying towards the end of 2012 I would disagree with you. Took the person 2-5 months of searching and found what they wanted, but they were realistic in their expectation and condition of property for the price they could afford.

There are plenty of houses for sale, however people these days would want them for next to nothing and semi-detached and so on....

When it comes to borrowing, no credit is not so easy to come by. The criteria for getting any loan or mortgage is a lot more tighter than the boom years and I would say if it was like this before we would not have gotten in the mess we did.

There are always people who are favorable for lending and there are the ones who are not.

The single biggest problem is the lack of properties for sale. We spent a year or 2 trying to buy houses that people only had on the market to keep the banks happy and refused to sell.

I disagree with this completely, there are plenty of properties for sale but people buying these days complain that the choice is not there because they have the expectation that they should be able to buy an ideal house and there should be 100's of them out there for the very low price. Completely unrealistic.

Secondly, if the houses are on the market and a reasonable offer is put people will sell them, however with the mixture of unreasonable asking price to unreasonable offers and peoples expectations on what the property is worth you get that illusion that people won't sale.

nacimroc

Peanut2011 wrote: »

There are plenty of houses for sale, however people these days would want them for next to nothing and semi-detached and so on....

These are more assumptions.

Peanut2011 wrote: »

When it comes to borrowing, no credit is not so easy to come by. The criteria for getting any loan or mortgage is a lot more tighter than the boom years and I would say if it was like this before we would not have gotten in the mess we did.

It's not hard to get credit, as long as its affordable. The banks stress test people and assuming everythings fine, they give credit. Its a fact. Of the 6 couple's I know all got it no problem as long as they ask for a reasonable affordable amount. (assuming the obvious, 2 incomes etc.) People asking for too much getting turned down is their problem. Not the banks.

Peanut2011 wrote: »

There are plenty of properties for sale but people buying these days complain that the choice is not there because they have the expectation that they should be able to buy an ideal house and there should be 100's of them out there for the very low price. Completely unrealistic.

More assumptions. I had no expectations. Neither do the people I know. The houses that are for sale now were overpriced 10 years ago, nevermind now. Thats why they never sold and never will.

If the people buying now are all saying the choice is not there, why ignore ALL of us? Its a fact.

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Secondly, if the houses are on the market and a reasonable offer is put people will sell them, however with the mixture of unreasonable asking price to unreasonable offers and peoples expectations on what the property is worth you get that illusion that people won't sale.

100% incorrect! There were no "illusions". I gave them the offer. We put an offer in OVER the asking price on 1 house and they refused it. We put offers in very close to the ridiculous asking prices of some more and were rejected. This is more fact. This goes back to my argument about people living rent/mortgage free waiting for write downs happy in the view they will get it.

Everyone is too quick to make assumptions these days. I heard so much ****e from people before I went buying about credit etc and almost every bit of it turned out to be wrong. If people would listen to the actual facts of people trying to buy, there would be a lot more sales.

george tobin

lima wrote: »

aren't, mate.

Pretence, mate.

The_Conductor

Behave!!!!

lima

george tobin wrote: »

Pretence, mate.

It's, mate.

Don't, mate.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75045530
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73328574

Back to this topic..

Don't like my opinion? What are your thoughts on this topic?

lima

so anyone get the banks houses taken from them yet?

I had been looking at askaboutmoney more than this thread but it's getting boring reading sob stories I don't care about. I've lost interest in buying anyway. Renting and living the high life..

gutteruu

Your better off anyway. Since my wife and I bought a house last summer, the peoples bank (AIB) have upped the interest rate 3 times and then spent it on behind closed doors 'bad investment' write off's. There is no reward for honesty in Ireland anymore.

You should just buy, claim you lost your job, go through "MARP", get a write off and live happily ever after.

Victor

lima wrote: »

so anyone get the banks houses taken from them yet?

I had been looking at askaboutmoney more than this thread but it's getting boring reading sob stories I don't care about. I've lost interest in buying anyway. Renting and living the high life..

On-topic, constructive posts only please.

Moderator