Home Reposessed??

beaner88

faceman wrote: »

You're forgetting the bank bailout also bailed out shareholders.

Not the shareholders than bailed the banks out.

nacimroc

faceman wrote: »

Because you made a terrible investment decision perhaps?

The debt was already written off at the time of the bailout. Why aren't you calling the banks and government to task for misleading you investment decision rather than seeking the punishment of those who aren't to blame?

Just on this point that keeps coming up! We the people allowed our politicians to save the banks with our money. We needed thriving banks for everyones sake and to keep the country moving along.

At no point ever did we assume that money would be used to write off Maureens Italian marble floor and range rover. Recapitalising the banks was so that we could carry on functioning as a normal economy.

People are speaking as if nobody has to pay by writing off their debt. If they pay that off, its almost gauranteed, my interest rate will go up again a few times this year. There will be even more bank charges, less lending, slower economy and more hurt. So there are huge consequences to using the money they were already given.

cookie1977

nacimroc wrote: »

Every single person in the country with a mortgage would throw the keys back at the bank. Why pay off something worth less than your paying when you can hand it back with no consequences.

3 years being bankrupt is really a tiny penalty to pay to get out of a lifetime of debt. This new bill should be seen as a real lifeline, but if people are too stuborn, proud, ignorant to take it then they get what's coming to them.

Just on the point of investments, even family homes were investments!

I am not for throwing the keys at the bank. I'm for some more equitable solution. As I said neither handing the keys back nor full repossessions with full repayment of monies outstanding are not real world solutions

cookie1977

nacimroc wrote: »

Just on this point that keeps coming up! We the people allowed our politicians to save the banks with our money. We needed thriving banks for everyones sake and to keep the country moving along.

At no point ever did we assume that money would be used to write off Maureens Italian marble floor and range rover. Recapitalising the banks was so that we could carry on functioning as a normal economy.

People are speaking as if nobody has to pay by writing off their debt. If they pay that off, its almost gauranteed, my interest rate will go up again a few times this year. There will be even more bank charges, less lending, slower economy and more hurt. So there are huge consequences to using the money they were already given.

Sorry but the whole point of recapitalisation was because the banks had so much worthless debt. How can many of these people pay off the debt? Even with the suggestion of 20 euro a week, how much is that going to help the country. Not a lot I suspect.

You mortgage rate is rising if you're on a variable mortgage because the banks decided it was a great idea to have trackers which cost them a fortune now. Not because of arrears or repossessions.

What you fear above will happen as long as there's no domestic economic growth. The only way to sort that is for people to spend. Yours and others ideas will achieve the opposite effect or at the very least create a two tier economy with those who have and those who have not.

beaner88

cookie1977 wrote: »

Sorry but the whole point of recapitalisation was because the banks had so much worthless debt. How can many of these people pay off the debt? Even with the suggestion of 20 euro a week, how much is that going to help the country. Not a lot I suspect.

You mortgage rate is rising if you're on a variable mortgage because the banks decided it was a great idea to have trackers which cost them a fortune now. Not because of arrears or repossessions.

What you fear above will happen as long as there's no domestic economic growth. The only way to sort that is for people to spend. Yours and others ideas will achieve the opposite effect or at the very least create a two tier economy with those who have and those who have not.

That is not true. The banks are paying very high intrabank rates because of the risk of default. They are insolvent and are relying on state aid to plug their holes. These are due to bad debts to developers and private individuals. These debts are written off in their balance sheets as bad debts but that does not mean they are "written off". They still intend to pursue them but accountants take them into account as possible losses. A big difference. The trackers are also a drag on their profits.

How will it help getting people to spend by taxing me an extra 2K a year to cover other peoples debts? So they get to go out and start spending in pubs and cafes again and I get to stay at home?

cookie1977

beaner88 wrote: »

That is not true. The banks are paying very high intrabank rates because of the risk of default. They are insolvent and are relying on state aid to plug their holes. These are due to bad debts to developers and private individuals. These debts are written off in their balance sheets as bad debts but that does not mean they are "written off". They still intend to pursue them but accountants take them into account as possible losses. A big difference. The trackers are also a drag on their profits.

How will it help getting people to spend by taxing me an extra 2K a year to cover other peoples debts? So they get to go out and start spending in pubs and cafes again and I get to stay at home?

The ecb and the irish central bank fund the Irish banks not intrabank loans

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/reliance-on-central-bank-funding-by-irish-banks-flat-in-september-2012/

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/1215/1224327874681.html

beaner88

That gives you an idea of what the real market thinks of our delinquent banks and their balance sheets.

cookie1977

The other high cost is the bank gaurantee scheme. But leaving that aside I have to say I am surprised by the "let them eat cake" thinking here. Is it really "it's their fault so stuff them"?

I kinda hoped we'd moved to a more feeling country since the recession but it seems not.

beaner88

Look at it from my side (and plenty of others)

2005 at some ****e party
Mr X-"I have two houses now, its the only way to go. I'm looking to add another now in the next year. Oh you rent? hahah you need to get on the ladder. Rent is dead money mate"

2012
Mr X -"Joe its not fair, the banks have ruined us. All I'm asking is for them to share the burden. I though we were becoming a more caring society again. "

cookie1977

You're still generalising. You're saying that anyone who bought during the good times and is now in debt/arrears deserves all they get. Which just isn't so. For a variety of reasons people are struggling and again without harping on, in order for an economy to grow we need the majority to be thriving. It makes no sense to punish people for what can only be described as partly their mistake.

Your world view is way to simple. You like lima seem annoyed that you're not getting free rent (your words). The problem is I'd bet most of those suffering with arrears would give anything to be in your position. They do not relish where they are now which is what you and others seem to think they do.

beaner88

It is the lack of fairness that kills me. The rules of capitalism are thrown away when it doesn't suit people to pay for their gamble. And what of moral hazard? I'm planning on renting a NAMA property in the new year and with a baby on the way I don't intend to pay a cent beyond the first month and deposit. I could probably stay a good two years and I would feel morally justified. The game is completely skewed against me with the supply of properties and prices maintained to support this charade.

cookie1977

So you're almost trying to tell me you envy those in debt, not paying their mortgage? I certainly would not like to be them. Can you say that you would have done any different to those who bought in the boom if you'd had that opportunity? Yes of course the country went mad but that's no reason to turn on the populous that are now regretting earlier decisions. We are not a solely capitalist country as I've said before. We have huge state support systems to help those who are struggling. If you want true capitalisim head to the USA where many there feel we're a socialist continent.

Be thankful that you're debt free, probably young and going into a recession with house prices this low. Think of all those people who are the wrong side of 40 and cannot afford to start all over again.

nacimroc

cookie1977 wrote: »

..in order for an economy to grow we need the majority to be thriving. It makes no sense to punish people for what can only be described as partly their mistake.

But you are quite happy to screw the prudent and reward the gamblers? Taking from us and giving to them has the net result of 0!! Doesn't make one bit of difference at all. It just means we don't have any disposable income instead. You have to look at both sides of the coin.

beaner88

cookie1977 wrote: »

So you're almost trying to tell me you envy those in debt, not paying their mortgage? I certainly would not like to be them. Can you say that you would have done any different to those who bought in the boom if you'd had that opportunity? Yes of course the country went mad but that's no reason to turn on the populous that are now regretting earlier decisions. We are not a solely capitalist country as I've said before. We have huge state support systems to help those who are struggling. If you want true capitalisim head to the USA where many there feel we're a socialist continent.

Be thankful that you're debt free, probably young and going into a recession with house prices this low. Think of all those people who are the wrong side of 40 and cannot afford to start all over again.

I had the opportunity and plenty of my peers bought at the time. I'd like to be able to sit on top of the pile and find some reward for my prudence and well reasoned financial decisions.

Instead I'm finding a massive constrained supply of property to buy and rent as there are no repossesions happening. I'm being asked to take year after year of tax increases to help pay to keep these people in their home. I'd be better off buying ten houses when I could and not paying a cent on them and taking in a load of rent.

cookie1977

Look, you and others want the houses reposessed and the owners to rent (if they can, even though they probably can't) a different property or fall under the care and support of the state where as I would like to see a split on the debt where the bank gets 50% of the value of the house and the owner pays off the other 50% over 20 years before the property is sold and bank paid off or the bank is bought out. Now tell me who's rewarding the gamblers?

All of your ideas are solely to suit yourselves. It's just selfish need to see property fall more so you don't have to pay more and to hell with the general populous.

My idea (or rather McWilliams) is to see people pay for their debts, banks get cash back monthly and at the end of 20 years and theirs then cash for the family to help the economy grow. I see no problem with this.

cookie1977

I somehow think you'll both survive the current "high" property prices. Do you tell your friends how they were greedy and foolish and how prudent you were?

beaner88

cookie1977 wrote: »

I somehow think you'll both survive the current "high" property prices. Do you tell your friends how they were greedy and foolish and how prudent you were?

Yeah quite a bit. I see myself as superior to the vast majority of people and I do like the remind them of their failings. I just need to be living the lifestyle I deserve and I'll do everything in my power to ensure this happens.

cookie1977

More power to you. You should feel proud that you avoided the pit falls of the boom and I mean that. But does it make you happier to sit in judgement of others?

Wicklowandy

A lot of people bought homes in the boom years not as an investment; they bought it as a home because they were at a point in their lives (settling down)

If they'd been born 10 or 15 years earlier, had made the same decision to buy a home in say 1990, they wouldnt be in the same situation. You cant punish a subset of people because they were born at a certain time.

Non recourse mortgages are what we need in the future. That will mean that banks will be prudent, and people who buy a home because they need one to live in will not be crippled if unforseen circumstances arise.

Its also worth noting that in 1990 banks generally lent 2.5 times principal salary and 1 times second salary. Even today the multiples are beyond this, and this will always play a part in property prices.

I dont have a solution to where its at at the moment, but i wish anyone with worries like this the very best of luck.

Calhoun

Wicklowandy wrote: »

A lot of people bought homes in the boom years not as an investment; they bought it as a home because they were at a point in their lives (settling down)

If they'd been born 10 or 15 years earlier, had made the same decision to buy a home in say 1990, they wouldnt be in the same situation. You cant punish a subset of people because they were born at a certain time.

How is paying what you owe a punishment? i don't remember seeing anywhere that purchasing property was a god given right. Yes some bought as they were looking to settle down but allot got greedy.

There was a culture of keeping up with the Jones that everyone got sucked into, new cars, flipping property to move to a bigger place ect. People lived it up in the boom now its time to pay the piper.

I am not saying these people should be punished indefinitely but actions must have consequences and under no circumstances should you be exempt from your dept because you were born at a certain time.

cookie1977

Calhoun wrote: »

How is paying what you owe a punishment? i don't remember seeing anywhere that purchasing property was a god given right. Yes some bought as they were looking to settle down but allot got greedy.

There was a culture of keeping up with the Jones that everyone got sucked into, new cars, flipping property to move to a bigger place ect. People lived it up in the boom now its time to pay the piper.

I am not saying these people should be punished indefinitely but actions must have consequences and under no circumstances should you be exempt from your dept because you were born at a certain time.

Yes but isn't there a risk on the part of the banks. Didn't they take a risk giving a mortgage to someone? Yes of course the person did not have to take such large amounts but shouldn't they (the bank) have done proper due diligence in to the person taking the mortgage and stress tested the individual themselves? How come when a bank is about to collapse it's rescued but when a person is about to collapse there is no sympathy?

If the debt can be paid back the person should be giving the opportunity even if it's over a greater period of time or the debt is shared with the bank (who in the end did not perform their proper duties in assessing the mortgagee).

If a house has to be repossessed then I think that any debt left after the sale of the property should be written off if the family cannot afford the repayment or the repayment would be penal.

beaner88

Yes but isn't there a risk on the part of the banks. Didn't they take a risk giving a mortgage to someone? Yes of course the person did not have to take such lareg amounts but shouldn't they (the bank) have done proper due diligence in to the person taking the mortgage and stress tested the individual themselves? How come when a bank is about to collapse it's rescued but when a person is about to collapse there is no sympathy?

I read this again and again. The banks took a risk that if a person did not repay their mortgage either due to job loss, pay cuts or whatever then they would the property as security. They also knew in the event that this security was worth less than teh outstanding debt they could pursue that person for this money. If they didn't have it then they could declare themselvse bankrupt.

Nothing has since changed. Those were the rules of engagement that both sides agreed to. That is what the buyer signed and they should have been seriously worried about hte possibility of serious negative equity and job losses in a bubble economy. Their choice and they got it wrong.

We all know that taking on banking debt was a huge mistake so why repeat it?

cookie1977

beaner88 wrote: »

I read this again and again. The banks took a risk that if a person did not repay their mortgage either due to job loss, pay cuts or whatever then they would the property as security. They also knew in the event that this security was worth less than teh outstanding debt they could pursue that person for this money. If they didn't have it then they could declare themselvse bankrupt.

Nothing has since changed. Those were the rules of engagement that both sides agreed to. That is what the buyer signed and they should have been seriously worried about hte possibility of serious negative equity and job losses in a bubble economy. Their choice and they got it wrong.

We all know that taking on banking debt was a huge mistake so why repeat it?

Yes why repeat the mistakes of the past and push a whole load of people into unnecessary hardship just to benefit a few with "cheap" houses. As with the bank bailout, rules can change.

beaner88

Cheap housing benefits a bit more than a few. It benefits the whole of society and our future society. We can never go back to a situation where property becomes this imaginary wealth generator. We can't have people spending 40% of their incomes on housing to benefit the people at the top of the pyramid. CHeap housing like cheap fuel is good for Ireland.

cookie1977

beaner88 wrote: »

Cheap housing benefits a bit more than a few. It benefits the whole of society and our future society. We can never go back to a situation where property becomes this imaginary wealth generator. We can't have people spending 40% of their incomes on housing to benefit the people at the top of the pyramid. CHeap housing like cheap fuel is good for Ireland.

Well in the capitalist society you so espouse to that's exactly what will happen. Dublin prices will always be high due to the geographic location and the lack of high rise buildings. Either you're a raving capitalist who wants people to pay for their mistakes or you're a raving socialist who wants cheap housing and cheap fuel controlled by the government so which is it :P

frogstar

,

cookie1977

frogstar wrote: »

I thought the point of this thread was to help those who are facing repossession.

Great to see it derailed by the same argument over and over

How is that going to help the op and others in that situation.

The full help for people is posted on the first page. But I can post it again if you like. This may also help:

www.keepingyourhome.ie

nacimroc

cookie1977 wrote: »

Yes but isn't there a risk on the part of the banks. Didn't they take a risk giving a mortgage to someone? Yes of course the person did not have to take such large amounts but shouldn't they (the bank) have done proper due diligence in to the person taking the mortgage and stress tested the individual themselves? How come when a bank is about to collapse it's rescued but when a person is about to collapse there is no sympathy?

The banks did get hit! They got completely wacked. We now completely own the AIB, have huge shareholdings in others. They made huge cuts, redundancies, share prices cut to almost nothing. The banks are worth a pittance now and went from thriving businesses to owned by the state making huge losses. So an outside observer could say the banks did take a hit because of it. (I hate them also but playing devils advocate on this one)

But excluding that, you wouldn't blame a sweet shop because you got fat on there cheap deals. It was the banks business to lend you money. At the moment all those people took out mortgages and I asked them what happens if they don't pay it back I would guess 100% knew the consequences. So why play the "it was all the banks fault" card.

With that being said I do agree with dealing with those struggling, but as I said you need to seperate them into groups of can't pay, won't pay, investors etc.

cookie1977

nacimroc wrote: »

The banks did get hit! They got completely wacked. We now completely own the AIB, have huge shareholdings in others. They made huge cuts, redundancies, share prices cut to almost nothing. The banks are worth a pittance now and went from thriving businesses to owned by the state making huge losses. So an outside observer could say the banks did take a hit because of it. (I hate them also but playing devils advocate on this one)

Of course they took a hit, I understand that. But a proper hit would have seen them being folded up rather than being bailed out as some capitalists on here claim they want to see happen those who cannot pay their mortgages. They got to write off their "bad debts" and collect money from the government and ECB to off set these losses yet they are not negotiating with suffering home owners.

nacimroc wrote: »

But excluding that, you wouldn't blame a sweet shop because you got fat on there cheap deals. It was the banks business to lend you money. At the moment all those people took out mortgages and I asked them what happens if they don't pay it back I would guess 100% knew the consequences. So why play the "it was all the banks fault" card.

I have no problem with them lending nor expecting that money back. My point as has always been my point is that simple repossessing is not necessarily the best answer for the banks, the mortgagee nor the public at large. That's if we want to see our country get back on it's feet. Debtors should pay back their debt, clearly. But why reposes when there are so many options to pursue first.

In some ways unfortunately I blame a lot of mortgagee's who are in arrears. They didn't approach the banks early enough to explain their difficulties. But that aside they should be afforded an opportunity to pay back the banks.

beaner88

I must have argued this same point a hundred times before.

A person can be against bailouts for personal/household debt and also against bailouts for banks and big business. The two are not mutually exclusive in fact they would tend to follow from each other.