Glut of repossessed houses could depress prices ‘by up to 25%’

strandroad

jay0109 wrote: »

So 35% of arrears of 90 days + are 'strategic' arrears. Looks like Prof Gregory Connor has being vindicated.

I wonder will the 'debt forgiveness' brigade update their mantra's to cover this or just conveniently ignore it!

The repossessions need to start asap

I don't see how "strategic" and "no payments" are the same at all. Some no payments are genuine, and some strategic defaulters make a point of paying a couple of quid precisely in order to defer any action against them. That's what was recommended here on several occasions - just pay them whatever and it will take them longer to come after you as you're showing goodwill.
The number may very well be correct or close, but the reasoning is wrong.

Snakeblood

mhge wrote: »

I don't see how "strategic" and "no payments" are the same at all. Some no payments are genuine, and some strategic defaulters make a point of paying a couple of quid precisely in order to defer any action against them. That's what was recommended here on several occasions - just pay them whatever and it will take them longer to come after you as you're showing goodwill.
The number may very well be correct or close, but the reasoning is wrong.

I don't see what difference it makes, to be honest. If you're not paying anything towards your mortgage for months, you shouldn't be in the house.

khards

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/home-repossessions-bill-passed-in-d%C3%A1il-1.1451988

Home repossessions Bill passed in Dáil - (Land and conveyancing reform bill 2013)
Minister for Justice Alan Shatter rejects a number of opposition amendments

Legislation to address a gap in the law resulting in the suspension of home repossessions was passed in the Dáil.

The Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill, which some opposition TDs claimed was a charter for house repossessions was passed by 91 votes to 42.

Minister for Justice Alan Shatter said “we are putting in place an interesting and important architecture which will allow the courts to assess the bona fides not just of those against whom repossession orders are sought, but also of those who seek such orders”.

In the remaining stages of the debate yesterday Mr Shatter rejected a number of Opposition amendments. One required a judge, before granting a repossession order, to consider whether the bank had rejected a proposal by a personal insolvency practitioner. It also required the judge to take into account whether a mortgage holder was given a chance to appeal any rejection by the bank.

Fianna Fáil justice spokesman Niall Collins said that day in day out banks adopted a high -handed, draconian approach to dealing with people in distress.

He said the banks had not acted reasonably. “Will they act reasonably from now on with the passage of this legislation? I believe the answer is No.”

Mr Shatter said, however, that the legislation had not yet been passed but “even now judges are adjourning proceedings in order to give individuals experiencing difficulties an opportunity to resolve them. In recent cases a number of judges actually encouraged engagement.”

He added that “judges have all sorts of wonderful ways of relaying messages to people whom they believe to be recalcitrant”. He said they might show reluctance to grant orders of possession where the lender was behaving unreasonably.

The Bill reinstates aspects of old legislation, removed when the 2009 Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act was passed.

Once the bill passes the Seanad, it needs to signed then it the law is amended.

EricPraline

A protest today disrupted the Allsop auction today.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/property-auction-cancelled-amid-heated-protests-by-people-who-have-lost-homes-29395090.html

Bizarrely, most of the properties for sale at the auction were commercial or investment properties, can't see many family homes in the catalogue. Have to wonder at the the motivation behind this - protection of property investors at the expense of the taxpayer?

uberalles

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ulster-bank-to-slash-branches-and-lay-off-up-to-1800-workers-29390739.html

Ulster Bank claims that no payments are being made on more than a third of the mortgages it has issued.

cookie1977

uberalles wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ulster-bank-to-slash-branches-and-lay-off-up-to-1800-workers-29390739.html

Ulster Bank claims that no payments are being made on more than a third of the mortgages it has issued.

And this has nothing to do with their announcement of job losses and bank closures. "Dont look here, look over here!!"

Zamboni

cookie1977 wrote: »

And this has nothing to do with their announcement of job losses and bank closures. "Dont look here, look over here!!"

Defaulters, job losses and bank closures are all covered in their announcement.
There is no distraction here.
Do you have a point to make at all?

jmayo

username123 wrote: »

As has been pointed out here and elsewhere its either some form of debt forgiveness or some form of social housing and assistance. The problem exists. It gets paid for by taxpayers one way or another.

So the only option for living accommodation is home ownership or social housing.
Perhaps you should share that nugget of wisdom with all the people that are renting and indeed the likes of the Germans who primarily rent.

I am sure they are about ready for another does of paddywhackery after the healy raes outlook on who does and doesn't deserve to be allowed drink and drive. :rolleyes:

EricPraline wrote: »

A protest today disrupted the Allsop auction today.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/property-auction-cancelled-amid-heated-protests-by-people-who-have-lost-homes-29395090.html

Bizarrely, most of the properties for sale at the auction were commercial or investment properties, can't see many family homes in the catalogue. Have to wonder at the the motivation behind this - protection of property investors at the expense of the taxpayer?

And see two of the politicos that turned up, none other than two individuals mattie mcgrath and michael healy rae whose familes are involved in plant hire business which presumably did alright during our builiding boom.

cookie1977 wrote: »

And this has nothing to do with their announcement of job losses and bank closures. "Dont look here, look over here!!"

Ulster, or rather RBS, are looking for an out from this banana state of a country and are not into playing the mindgames that the taxpayer owned and funded banks are at shoving the issues under the carpet.

Also please remember Ulster bank are not costing us billions like the Irish banks.
BTW you do know that the employees in what was once Anglo, INBS and indeed AIB have been kept in work at enormous expense to the taxpayers.

cookie1977

Zamboni wrote: »

Defaulters, job losses and bank closures are all covered in their announcement.
There is no distraction here.
Do you have a point to make at all?

Oh please, do I have to explain? They've known about the non payers for how long now but they decide to release that information the same day they announce job losses and branch closures. And you dont wonder about the timing at all?

Snakeblood

cookie1977 wrote: »

And this has nothing to do with their announcement of job losses and bank closures. "Dont look here, look over here!!"

There's no money so they're closing banks and firing people. There's no money because people aren't paying mortgages. That's not misdirection, that's direction.

cookie1977

Snakeblood wrote: »

There's no money so they're closing banks and firing people. There's no money because people aren't paying mortgages. That's not misdirection, that's direction.

I'm not disputing the need for job losses and branch closers, it's necessary due to the state the bank got it self into with poor management. But dont tell me the secondary information is from a reliable source on the day they make these announcements.

cookie1977

jmayo wrote: »

Ulster, or rather RBS, are looking for an out from this banana state of a country and are not into playing the mindgames that the taxpayer owned and funded banks are at shoving the issues under the carpet.

Also please remember Ulster bank are not costing us billions like the Irish banks.
BTW you do know that the employees in what was once Anglo, INBS and indeed AIB have been kept in work at enormous expense to the taxpayers.

And there was no attempt by the British government to off load UB on the Irish state, thus trying to cost us more money?
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/ulster-bank-sold-to-ireland-936474-Jun2013/

The IBRC is still an operation and needs to be staffed. There has already been significant job losses at Anglo an INBS and IBRC since it formed.

Snakeblood

cookie1977 wrote: »

I'm not disputing the need for job losses and branch closers, it's necessary due to the state the bank got it self into with poor management. But dont tell me the secondary information is from a reliable source on the day they make these announcements.

If you just don't want to believe it, then don't. If you don't have some reason for thinking it's not true, though, then it's just wasting time engaging with you on the subject.

cookie1977

Snakeblood wrote: »

If you just don't want to believe it, then don't. If you don't have some reason for thinking it's not true, though, then it's just wasting time engaging with you on the subject.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Snakeblood

cookie1977 wrote: »

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Bank: We have to fire people, also we are not getting paid in 35% of mortgages

Cookie1977: I believe the first bit but not the second. No I won't explain what reason I have for this. QED.

Snakeblood: Why believe the first part if you don't believe the second. Do you think that they wouldnt' be able to back this up with figures? Are you familiar with the concept of people sticking their fingers in their ears to stop them hearing things they don't like?

Cookie1977: Can't hear you, I have my fingers in my ears.

cookie1977

1: Some people have taken that the 35% non payers are actually can pay wont pay. This has not been revealed by UB. The 35% is made up of all non payers (can and cant).

2: Why hasn't Ulster Bank ascertained and announced the number of can pay wont pay?

3: The message they're (UB) trying to put out there with the "extra" info is "oh if it wasn't for these non payers we'd still have the branches and the jobs". How about they take some of the blame for the job losses themselves and tell us about the bad decisions they made during the boom? Why wait until the job losses to announce the % of non payers. Why not announce in the press release the mistakes they made during the boom? Sure that would be on topic.

Snakeblood

cookie1977 wrote: »

1: Some people have taken that the 35% non payers are actually can pay wont pay. This has not been revealed by UB. The 35% is made up of all non payers (can and cant).

2: Why hasn't Ulster Bank ascertained and announced the number of can pay wont pay?

3: The message they're (UB) trying to put out there with the "extra" info is "oh if it wasn't for these non payers we'd still have the branches and the jobs". How about they take some of the blame for the job losses themselves and tell us about the bad decisions they made during the boom? Why wait until the job losses to announce the % of non payers. Why not announce in the press release the mistakes they made during the boom? Sure that would be on topic.

1: Ok. Did Ulster bank make that clear in their release? Edit: From the Irish Times:

Speaking during a call with investors during which the bank outlined plans to reduce its number of branches, Ulster Bank’s chief risk officer Stephen Bell said about 35 per cent of mortgage borrowers in arrears are not currently paying anything.

Seems pretty clear they are speaking about people who are in default not paying anything. They're not going into detail probably because of point 2.


2: Because that's more difficult.
3: They certainly are going for that message. That doesn't make the two things they are saying not true. Maybe you don't agree with the message they are trying to spin with the two things, but then, that's the thing about spin vs. facts.

cookie1977

Snakeblood wrote: »

1: Ok. Did Ulster bank make that clear in their release?
2: Because they're going after people who won't pay.
3: They certainly are going for that message. That doesn't make the two things they are saying not true. Maybe you don't agree with the message they are trying to spin with the two things, but then, that's the thing about spin vs. facts.

No they didn't make that clear. They left it purposely ambiguous. It's only UB's statement that there's 35% non payers. They haven't proved it by opening their books now have they? Did you get a look? I know the CB didn't. Sure UB are trying to get under the regulation of the British central bank and away from our own.

I like facts.

cookie1977

And today UB had to role back on some of their statements from yesterday:
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/financial-services/cantillon-ulster-bank-restructuring-not-as-it-first-seemed-1.1451905

The news initially emerged following a presentation to investors with word spreading like wildfire that 1,800 staff were to go and 50 branches to close. This was initially thought to be on top of already-announced cuts by the bank.

Then

The bank subsequently clarified that 950 staff would be leaving the company on redundancy terms, as per an announcement in January 2012. In addition, another 350 or more positions might go by way of natural attrition, not redundancy.

You'll forgive me but when they cant even get a simple call to investors right how can we trust the rest of their "stats".

Snakeblood

cookie1977 wrote: »

No they didn't make that clear. They left it purposely ambiguous. It's only UB's statement that there's 35% non payers. They haven't proved it by opening their books now have they? Did you get a look? I know the CB didn't. Sure UB are trying to get under the regulation of the British central bank and away from our own.

I like facts.

Well, no, they didn't leave it purposely ambiguous. They said that of the people who were in default, 35% weren't paying anything at all. That's not even remotely ambiguous. If the question was 'How many people who could pay their mortgages, aren't?' that's not an ambiguous answer, that's not answering the question at all.

I don't care if you can or can't pay your mortgage, but aren't. If you're over 90 days in arrears and aren't paying anything, then you can't pay for your house. You should get out.

Edit: as a general rule of thumb. I could see where allowance might be made, but by and large, get out.

cookie1977

Snakeblood wrote: »

Well, no, they didn't leave it purposely ambiguous. They said that of the people who were in default, 35% weren't paying anything at all. That's not even remotely ambiguous. If the question was 'How many people who could pay their mortgages, aren't?' that's not an ambiguous answer, that's not answering the question at all.

I don't care if you can or can't pay your mortgage, but aren't. If you're over 90 days in arrears and can't pay anything, then you can't pay for your house. You should get out.

In your opinion they didn't. In mine they did.

My thoughts on your second point can be found throughout this thread.

jmayo

cookie1977 wrote: »

And there was no attempt by the British government to off load UB on the Irish state, thus trying to cost us more money?
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/ulster-bank-sold-to-ireland-936474-Jun2013/

Well could you blame them as a big chunk of the losses in Ulster were run up in Ireland and not the UK.

cookie1977 wrote: »

The IBRC is still an operation and needs to be staffed. There has already been significant job losses at Anglo an INBS and IBRC since it formed.

significant my ar**.
What operation have IBRC still got ?
Why is anybody belonging to those two banks still in employment, especially anyone at level of management.
Anglo as good as lost it's loan book to NAMA, doesn't have any real customers so why did it continue to have employees ?
Oh wait they are chasing the people who owe them money. :rolleyes:

Oh and here is a lovely nugget for you.
One of the gimps on those Anglo tapes was employed courtesy of the taxpayer until recent enough.
Now how does that sit with you ?

cookie1977 wrote: »

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I get the feeling you have that issue with most of us.

cookie1977

jmayo wrote: »

I get the feeling you have that issue with most of us.

I might disagree with a some of you but I do understand you (well most of you)

Snakeblood

cookie1977 wrote: »

In your opinion they didn't. In mine they did.

My thoughts on your second point can be found throughout this thread.

Explain with quotes, the ambiguity. Where does doubt come in over whether they're talking about everyone who is in default, or won't pays.

cookie1977

Snakeblood wrote: »

Explain with quotes, the ambiguity. Where does doubt come in over whether they're talking about everyone who is in default, or won't pays.

No. We disagree so explaining wont achieve anything.

Snakeblood

cookie1977 wrote: »

No. We disagree so explaining wont achieve anything.

Well, it explains who is right and who is wrong. For instance, I included a quote from the paper which explained clearly what they were talking about. You however, found ambiguity, so you could at the very least, show the bit that you find ambiguous. Otherwise you could drop it as a subject because you're wrong and wasting people's time.

cookie1977

Snakeblood wrote: »

Well, it explains who is right and who is wrong. For instance, I included a quote from the paper which explained clearly what they were talking about. You however, found ambiguity, so you could at the very least, show the bit that you find ambiguous. Otherwise you could drop it as a subject because you're wrong and wasting people's time.

If you say so.

cookie1977

lima wrote: »

They are just relentless in their agenda!!!

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/dublin-house-prices-expected-to-rise-but-repossessions-hike-expected-in-buytolet-market-report-29130655.html

gurramok wrote: »

That is some propaganda piece indeed. (and they don't allow comments on their article)

Somehow the "slowest rate of decline since March 2008" is translated to "the housing market has stabilised and prices are likely to rise in Dublin". One months rise and then the fall the next month and even a rise the following month in the CSO index does not equal to rising prices on a sustainable path. It needs many months of consecutive rises to definitely say in general "prices are rising".

The above was from back in March. It looks like at at the moment NCB stockbrokers were correct: Property prices surge 12pc in south Dublin as homes outside capital fall.

I think this thread will be interesting to look over in the coming months and years as things progress (however they progress).

gaius c

It's fair enough to assume that people paying zero towards their mortgage are at least partially strategic. If they were merely in difficulty but intending to pay, they would make some nominal payments at least.

cookie1977

gaius c wrote: »

It's fair enough to assume that people paying zero towards their mortgage are at least partially strategic. If they were merely in difficulty but intending to pay, they would make some nominal payments at least.

I see your point but I dont agree. We (either the banks or the CB) dont seem to be gathering much information about them at all. There seems to be no real attempts at identifying strategic (can but wont pay) from those that cant pay and I am puzzled as to why this has been let slide.

There's so many questions. Are those paying nothing communicating with the banks at all? Surely it makes financial sense for the banks to pursue can pay wont pay so why aren't they then?