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

cookie1977

This is pretty shocking:

Three-quarters of mortgages over three months in arrears at Ireland’s six main lenders have yet to be restructured, figures from the Department of Finance show.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/most-mortgages-90-days-in-arrears-not-restructured-1.1579977

This is very poor on the banks part. If they're unwilling to deal with restructuring how in gods name does anyone here think they will deal with repossessions.

Details of restructurings that have been agreed show that banks remain loath to write off mortgage debt, preferring instead to extend the term of the loan or grant a period of interest-only payments in most cases.
The figures cover 699,764 mortgages at AIB, Bank of Ireland, ACCBank, Permanent TSB, KBC Ireland and Ulster Bank – which between them account for 35 per cent of the homes in the State.

While the vast majority (83 per cent) of the mortgages in the Department of Finance study were performing and not in arrears, 17 per cent or 120,754 were behind in their payments of more than one day.
Of the 82,624 mortgages in arrears of more than 90 days, just under 25 per cent had been restructured, while 62,210 or 75.3 per cent had not been restructured.
The department says it hopes the new data, which will be published monthly, will “complement” the Central Bank’s quarterly mortgage arrears resolution targets.

There needs to be significant pressure applied to the banks to look at restructuring first where possible before we see repossessions. And in light of the fact that the banks seem to be favouring loan extensions and interest only periods maybe some of them could start thinking more imaginatively about real solutions (and I dont mean debt write offs only) to deal with the problems. I live in hope.

cookie1977

I haven't had a chance to read through the report from the DoF yet but it's here if anyone wants to have a read of it. (Short enough)

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/reports/2013/mortgagearrearaug2013.pdf

khards

The banks should just get on and repo as many properties as possible who are over a years behing on their mortgage.

People have now had years of living mortgage free and YEARS to get their acts together - soon it will be 2014 time has moved on. You have to move with it or get left behind.

Frankly if you can't pay your mortgage arrears in 2013/14 then frankly you can't afford the property and it should be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The money raised can then be used to mend banks balance sheets.

At the rate of this carry on, the banks will need bailing again in 12 months!

Ray Palmer

khards wrote: »

The banks should just get on and repo as many properties as possible who are over a years behing on their mortgage.

People have now had years of living mortgage free and YEARS to get their acts together - soon it will be 2014 time has moved on. You have to move with it or get left behind.

Frankly if you can't pay your mortgage arrears in 2013/14 then frankly you can't afford the property and it should be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The money raised can then be used to mend banks balance sheets.

At the rate of this carry on, the banks will need bailing again in 12 months!

I think you have realise that banks don't jump on people instantly for being in arrears of 90 days. The restructuring has to be approached by the mortgage holder too. It isn't the same as rent.

A 3 month blip on a 30 year mortgage isn't exactly going to break a bank. It is more to do with the people than the banks.

Years behind should be acted on quickly but even a year can easily be dealt with easily with a restructure. Repossessions should happen and it is messing with the true economics of the market.

Activists on the market trying to keep people in the houses and strong feeling from the public is really why the banks are dragging their feet. The banks are damned either way.

You got to wonder how many repossessed could be freed into the Dublin market as it is heating up. Would it really make a massive difference. I doubt it is 25% of the housing stock and at most a possible 10% but there traditionally a 10% vacancy rate anyway. I know people waiting to sell property they are renting and not losing money on.

khards

I think the reason the banks are not too bothered is they charge fees and compound interest in the interest and fees.
They will wait until the owner has to sell death, divorce, new job then take the house back then. the bank is relying on inflation with this strategy, unfortunately they have deflation to deal with.

Heads the bank wins, tails you loose.

The banks are not repo'ing anything is around here (Galway) there are hundreds, if not thousands of empty properties (most requiring some work and within commutable distance) that could be put back in use.
The alternative is that they are demolished in another 5/10 years time - great for the vested interests but a terrible waste to society.
For the good of the country it would be better to turn these back to good use now and reduce local authority waiting lists and peoples rents.

Also, at the end of the day you were over ambitious and bought/built a house that was more expensive than you could afford - yes it's a shame but the free market must be allowed to prevail where the economy is based upon the hard work and rather than the more you gamble/speculate the more you gain.

If people do not learn a the lesson then ultimately society will have learn the hard way - Greek style.

The Spider

cookie1977 wrote: »

This is pretty shocking:


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/most-mortgages-90-days-in-arrears-not-restructured-1.1579977

This is very poor on the banks part. If they're unwilling to deal with restructuring how in gods name does anyone here think they will deal with repossessions.





There needs to be significant pressure applied to the banks to look at restructuring first where possible before we see repossessions. And in light of the fact that the banks seem to be favouring loan extensions and interest only periods maybe some of them could start thinking more imaginatively about real solutions (and I dont mean debt write offs only) to deal with the problems. I live in hope.

Now listen to me carefully here, There will be no repossessions, not for years! The banks are not going to flood the market with properties and drive down the prices, the banks are not going to crystalise the losses on the loans, The banks are going to hold back and continue to watch prices rise.

The higher prices go the less of a hit the bank takes on the loan, so supply is going to be managed until prices rise substantially, then and only then will the banks repossess, and that's a few years away.

Politicians have zero interest in campaigning for people to be thrown out of their homes, it's not exactly a vote winner is it?

Finally and this is the important one, neither the banks or the government has any interest in you or anyone else getting a cheap house, they have an interest in making money from property, either through interest on loans or from taxes.

People should stop waiting for a wave or repossessions it isn't going to happen, you'll be asking where the repos are, this time next year, meanwhile prices will have risen by 25%.

khards

A close friend of mine has not paid their mortgage for a very long time, they have said that the banks send letters and they just ignore them and they go away.
As they are in a lot of negative equity on their PPR and a part finished development, it is not worth their while engaging with the bank as if they repossess then they have lost nothing. Then longer they stay put then the more they save on rent they would otherwise have to pay.

When you have thousands of people milking the system like this then it is certain the banks will collapse again.

khards

The Spider wrote: »

Now listen to me carefully here, There will be no repossessions, not for years! The banks are not going to flood the market with properties and drive down the prices, the banks are not going to crystalise the losses on the loans, The banks are going to hold back and continue to watch prices rise.

The higher prices go the less of a hit the bank takes on the loan, so supply is going to be managed until prices rise substantially, then and only then will the banks repossess, and that's a few years away.

Politicians have zero interest in campaigning for people to be thrown out of their homes, it's not exactly a vote winner is it?

Finally and this is the important one, neither the banks or the government has any interest in you or anyone else getting a cheap house, they have an interest in making money from property, either through interest on loans or from taxes.

People should stop waiting for a wave or repossessions it isn't going to happen, you'll be asking where the repos are, this time next year, meanwhile prices will have risen by 25%.

That's all fine and dandy, but where to you dream that people will find extra money to service mortgages on higher value properties.
If that money existed then property would already be priced higher as people bidded up property with the extra finds that they have for paying mortgages with.

I think people who sit there dreaming of a return to normal just cannot grasp that house prices were grossly overvalued and 99% of the mc.masions that were built would have never been built in the first place if capital was not misallocated by the bubble.

Prices will not return to where they were for at least the duration of a mortgage 30 years in many cases.

Banks cannot afford 30 years of mortgage arrears, so what are they going to do?

@The Spider - Please tell me where the extra mortgage money to service the higher property prices is going to come from? If you can't then your analysis in totally and utterly incorrect.

From what I can see (in the arrears data) people do not have enough money to service their current mortgages, let alone higher value mortgages.

People still live in a fairy land where they can build a Mc.Mansion, afford 5 kids and just one person works. The economic reality is the average person can afford no kids and live in a 2 bedroom grotty flat.

The Spider

khards wrote: »

That's all fine and dandy, but where to you dream that people will find extra money to service mortgages on higher value properties.
If that money existed then property would already be priced higher as people bidded up property with the extra finds that they have for paying mortgages with.

I think people who sit there dreaming of a return to normal just cannot grasp that house prices were grossly overvalued and 99% of the mc.masions that were built would have never been built in the first place if capital was not misallocated by the bubble.

Prices will not return to where they were for at least the duration of a mortgage 30 years in many cases.

Banks cannot afford 30 years of mortgage arrears, so what are they going to do?

@The Spider - Please tell me where the extra mortgage money to service the higher property prices is going to come from? If you can't then your analysis in totally and utterly incorrect.

From what I can see (in the arrears data) people do not have enough money to service their current mortgages, let alone higher value mortgages.

People still live in a fairy land where they can build a Mc.Mansion, afford 5 kids and just one person works. The economic reality is the average person can afford no kids and live in a 2 bedroom grotty flat.

Mortgages? they'll come from the same place I got mine to buy my 5 bed McMansion last year, the bank. There's a lot of assumptions here like banks aren't giving out money, I had zero and I mean zero difficulty getting a mortgage.

Take a look at the buying a house in 2013 thread, there's plenty of people getting mortgages, there's plenty of people in good jobs, and on top of that prices are rising, there is a massive demand out there for houses.

If you have no debts and a decent job with a deposit saved you'll get a mortgage. If you don't have that then you wont get a house anyway regardless of the price.

Villa05

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I think to suggest FTBs are primarily young and internet users you might have missed the masses of people who were priced out during the boom who are now FTBs.

Given people who might be really angry and bothered by property prices would be drawn to the article you have an extremely bias view.

It might lead to investigation but that doesn't make it any more valid.


If you have never noticed interest groups jumping on these polls I think you are really misguided to consider them valid.

If you want to trust polls from the Journal fell free but it is unreasonable to say everybody else should and using such a faulty source don't be surprised if you are way off an accurate prediction.

During the bubble money was thrown at everyone, I knew people on social welfare who had no difficulty obtaining a mortgage. Very few people were "priced out" during the bubble.

Whatever about the poll, I admire the non bias of the journal in allowing people to air their views, given that the mother company is heavily involved in property. Compare and contrast with the rag that is the Indo and the Irish Times. Many of the bullish articles have comments disabled, where they are available, there gone after 2 days

khards

The Spider wrote: »

Mortgages? they'll come from the same place I got mine to buy my 5 bed McMansion last year, the bank. There's a lot of assumptions here like banks aren't giving out money, I had zero and I mean zero difficulty getting a mortgage.

Take a look at the buying a house in 2013 thread, there's plenty of people getting mortgages, there's plenty of people in good jobs, and on top of that prices are rising, there is a massive demand out there for houses.

If you have no debts and a decent job with a deposit saved you'll get a mortgage. If you don't have that then you wont get a house anyway regardless of the price.

You have not answered my question, I asked.

@The Spider - Please tell me where the extra mortgage money to service the higher property prices is going to come from?

For where is someone going to earn more money than you to buy your house at a higher price. And they would need to earn more to pay more interest on a bigger loan.

It's a very simple question.

The Spider

khards wrote: »

You have not answered my question, I asked.



For where is someone going to earn more money than you to buy your house at a higher price. And they would need to earn more to pay more interest on a bigger loan.

It's a very simple question.

How about their job? they get a new job? They have investments in shares and cash some in?

The simple fact is House prices are rising and people are buying them, I don't know where they got the money, but they have it and are buying.

Your question is very similar to the one that was asked all the way through the boom about houses not rising forever and I asked it myself.

They will fall again at some point in the future, but when that is, is anyone's guess, the last time it took 12 years to get to the crash and another 4 before all the falls were through.

Ray Palmer

Villa05 wrote: »

During the bubble money was thrown at everyone, I knew people on social welfare who had no difficulty obtaining a mortgage. Very few people were "priced out" during the bubble.

Whatever about the poll, I admire the non bias of the journal in allowing people to air their views, given that the mother company is heavily involved in property. Compare and contrast with the rag that is the Indo and the Irish Times. Many of the bullish articles have comments disabled, where they are available, there gone after 2 days

If you think very few were priced out of the market I doubt you have any understanding of the market during the boom or where we stand now. I know plenty of people who were priced out of their desired market. I know a group about 12 in one company where we are all roughly the same age and only 3 of us bought homes. It wasn't the others didn't want to they just couldn't afford it. They still don't own and still want to. They are potential FTB with largish saving and long term steady jobs. They could have afforded apartments but didn't want them so they didn't buy. They are grateful too.

The window for them to buy is closing as they get older. So those people are in much stronger position can afford. They also don't want prices to rise but that is their personal interests. They would vote accordingly but it doesn't really prove anything either.

I really don't think there is some great work from the Journal it often just posts press releases and does not do amazing journalistic investigation. A lot closer to a rag than the main newspapers in this country. The fact they don't edit comments is just because it is cheap.

I despair for the people growing up with modern media as they seem to completely miss the importance of proper investigative journalism. Would the journal have got the Anglo tapes for example?

Villa05

The Spider wrote: »

Mortgages? they'll come from the same place I got mine to buy my 5 bed McMansion last year, the bank. There's a lot of assumptions here like banks aren't giving out money, I had zero and I mean zero difficulty getting a mortgage.

Take a look at the buying a house in 2013 thread, there's plenty of people getting mortgages, there's plenty of people in good jobs, and on top of that prices are rising, there is a massive demand out there for houses.

If you have no debts and a decent job with a deposit saved you'll get a mortgage. If you don't have that then you wont get a house anyway regardless of the price.

Mortgage Lending

Irish mortgage lending in Q2 2013 remained at 40-year low

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026413.shtml

The under 35's continue to suffer job loss disproportionately, Take out this cohort and the property pyramid collapses.

Decreases in employment were recorded in the 25-34 (-11,900 or -2.3%) and 20-24 (-2,100 or -1.7%)
age groups.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/latestheadlinefigures/qnhs_q22013.pdf


There must be plenty of people requiring state support to meet there accommodation needs. Putting ALL the states resources into inflating property prices is a double edged sword that will cut the legs of the state.

Villa05

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If you think very few were priced out of the market I doubt you have any understanding of the market during the boom or where we stand now. I know plenty of people who were priced out of their desired market. I know a group about 12 in one company where we are all roughly the same age and only 3 of us bought homes.

I despair for the people growing up with modern media as they seem to completely miss the importance of proper investigative journalism. Would the journal have got the Anglo tapes for example?

What happened amongst your friends is not a proper analysis of what happened in the market. The vast majority bought in commuterville driven by panic buying and 100%+ mortgages

The Anglo tapes were posted to Paul Williams, all he had to do was listen and extract the juicy bits

cookie1977

Villa05 wrote: »

Mortgage Lending

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026413.shtml

The under 35's continue to suffer job loss disproportionately, Take out this cohort and the property pyramid collapses.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/latestheadlinefigures/qnhs_q22013.pdf


There must be plenty of people requiring state support to meet there accommodation needs. Putting ALL the states resources into inflating property prices is a double edged sword that will cut the legs of the state.

Another choosy look at the stats. I can be choosy too. Looking at the numbers unemployed in the 25-34 age group (Male and Female). In the past three years this has dropped from 103K in Q2 2011 to 96 in Q2 2012 not to 85K in Q2 2013 (a drop of just over 17% in 3 years). That's from the same stats linked to above. Of course lots of reasons for this too. Falling birth rates, migration but also other positive factors.

Stats in isolation very rarely show anything other then the point the person wants to prove. Stats as a whole are more revealing. If you want to talk stats lets look at them in their entirety.

Villa05

cookie1977 wrote: »

Another choosy look at the stats. I can be choosy too. Looking at the numbers unemployed in the 25-34 age group (Male and Female). In the past three years this has dropped from 103K in Q2 2011 to 96 in Q2 2012 not to 85K in Q2 2013 (a drop of just over 17% in 3 years). That's from the same stats linked to above. Of course lots of reasons for this too. Falling birth rates, migration but also other positive factors.

Stats in isolation very rarely show anything other then the point the person wants to prove. Stats as a whole are more revealing. If you want to talk stats lets look at them in their entirety.

When it comes to house prices, the key stat is the numbers employed in the 25 to 34 year old group. Would you agree?

What are the positive factors if the numbers employed are falling

cookie1977

Villa05 wrote: »

When it comes to house prices, the key stat is the numbers employed in the 25 to 34 year old group. Would you agree?

What are the positive factors if the numbers employed are falling

Yes but the numbers as a % of the total are very small. The age group you're looking at might have temporarily left the country to work and or travel so could return. Basically the figures show an increase in employment of 1.8%. This overall is more positive then if there was a drop. To me it seems you're looking through the stats just to find the negative points and try to extrapolate from them the worst case scenario.

I disagree with your assessment of the stats.

Ray Palmer

Villa05 wrote: »

What happened amongst your friends is not a proper analysis of what happened in the market. The vast majority bought in commuterville driven by panic buying and 100%+ mortgages

The Anglo tapes were posted to Paul Williams, all he had to do was listen and extract the juicy bits

Well where is your analysis showing everybody who wanted a home got a mortgage and bought a house. I know more people waiting to buy then I know who bought. So according to you every body in their late 30s early 40s bought houses? That has no credibility. Considering all the way up in the boom people were complain house ownership was a right and they couldn't afford to get mortgages just screams how what you are saying is not true.

I have heard some silly things on the boom but this is high on the list of ridiculous comments. Strangely lots of people kept renting rather than buying a house and commuting to Dublin.

riclad

Rents are cheaper outside dublin,
some people think if prices are going down ,better to rent.
ITS harder to get a mortgage now.
I think more people want to buy in dublin now,
people who work in dublin want to buy in dublin.
Commuting is time consuming ,petrol is expensive.
ITS mainly dublin where prices are rising.

People bought houses 50 miles from dublin, did not expect prices to fall 50 per cent.

IF there was 2000 repossessed apartments put on the market tommorow,
it might not effect the house prices much,
as many people are looking to buy a house.
eg they want to bring up a family in the future.

Ray Palmer

riclad wrote: »

Rents are cheaper outside dublin,
some people think if prices are going down ,better to rent.
ITS harder to get a mortgage now.
I think more people want to buy in dublin now,
people who work in dublin want to buy in dublin.
Commuting is time consuming ,petrol is expensive.
ITS mainly dublin where prices are rising.

People bought houses 50 miles from dublin, did not expect prices to fall 50 per cent.

Yeah lots of people got stung by the price increases on areas not considered commuter areas to Dublin prior to the boom. Dublin still has to catch up with other European capitals where people live in the city and don't have cars.

Do you think the kids of now are going to be willing to commute to Dublin when they get older? Considering commuter times are likely to increase and more pedestrianized streets in Dublin I don't see it.

A lot of people going on about how they were smarter buying outside of the city and getting much bigger houses are now seeing the chickens come home to roost. Dublin is recovering first and likely to keep rising for a while. So the extra payment for Dublin now looks like it was the smart thing to do because who knew fuel would get more expensive, commuter times increase and cost of keeping a car traveling long distances had a cost.

moxin

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Seriously a poll run on any website is extremely bias. There is no quality control and multiple voting often happens from people feeling strongly.

Then you'd get "double voting" from both sides if they feel so strongly about it. IP's would have to be unique though, most sites have this rule.. Yes i'd agree that the demographic of the journal are most likely younger(under 45) and work at a desk for their jobs, its a snapshot of that particular demographic across the whole country.

Anyway, 2 days later and the "good thing" side has jumped 100 votes but still at 15%, 4,600 in total voted now. Its consistent

Villa05

cookie1977 wrote: »

Yes but the numbers as a % of the total are very small. The age group you're looking at might have temporarily left the country to work and or travel so could return. Basically the figures show an increase in employment of 1.8%. This overall is more positive then if there was a drop. To me it seems you're looking through the stats just to find the negative points and try to extrapolate from them the worst case scenario.

I disagree with your assessment of the stats.

I'm looking at the stats from a sustainability point of view

House price rises are driven by cash sales, when the cash runs out what will keep prices at current levels.
Mortgage lending hovering at an all time low.
Our youth suffering the worst of the recession.
National and private debt at unsustainable levels.
Interest rates at an all time low, what happens when they start rising


Yes supply in Dublin is low, but this is from years of bad planning, Gov policy. It just proves that the powers that be are completely and utterly incompetent or running the country for vested interests. Either way it is not good for you/me and especially not for the under 35's.

Villa05

20,000 mortgage customers who have never been in arrears have done restructuring deals with the banks.

And for the first time it has revealed that at least half of all borrowers who have signed up to permanent mortgage restructurings were never behind on their repayments.

It is the first insight into the scale of mortgage distress among people who have never been behind in their repayments and so were never factored into official statistics about the mortgage crisis.

It's the strongest evidence yet that in many cases people who know they are in danger of falling behind on their loans are seeking and getting a deal from the bank..

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/now-were-paying-off-mortgages-into-our-70s-29717798.html

Nearly 200,000 having some kind of difficulty repaying their mortgage.
Residential > 3 months: 97,874
Residential < 3 months: 45,018
BTL > 3 months: 30,326
Restructured (not on arrears figures): 20,000

If the ECB rate returns to normal, this pyramid will come crashing down

cookie1977

Villa05 wrote: »

20,000 mortgage customers who have never been in arrears have done restructuring deals with the banks.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/now-were-paying-off-mortgages-into-our-70s-29717798.html

Nearly 200,000 having some kind of difficulty repaying their mortgage.
Residential > 3 months: 97,874
Residential < 3 months: 45,018
BTL > 3 months: 30,326
Restructured (not on arrears figures): 20,000

If the ECB rate returns to normal, this pyramid will come crashing down

I'm one of those people. It's called pre arrears under the MARP. When you feel that if things dont improve or change then it is sensible to notify the bank about the possibility of going into arrears if help does not come. The restructuring deal I got was a term extension on my PPR which I hope to shorten once my kids are in school and out of full time day care. this period of my life is the most expensive.

I have to say though the negotiations with bank where an eye opener to their operations.

stevedublin

cookie1977 wrote: »

I have to say though the negotiations with bank where an eye opener to their operations.

in what way?

cookie1977

We filled out a financial statement and sent it to the banks mortgage arrears advisor. We then met with the advisor who was shocked at how little we spend on "lifestyle" and asked did we want to not change and increase some of those figures which we declined to do as we wanted to be honest about our situation.

I wanted to cut my capital payments on my BTL by 300euro per month for 3 years so we'd still be paying some capital (about 200) and all of the interest on the loan. Our mortgage advisor agreed with our analysis of what we needed extra per month but came back with a recommendation of extending the loan on the BTL to the max (which was about an extra 8 years) which would do the same job to of saving about 350 a month (although we'd pay more interest in the long run). We wanted to go with our plan of 3 years reduced capital payments but she said they wouldn't go for that.

I was worried we'd lose our tracker on the apt if we went with her plan but she said that in all the similar recommendations she'd put forward the bank had always agreed to it with out the person loosing the tracker so we went with her plan.

The bank came back and rejected their own mortgage advisors recommendations as well as my own suggestion and only offered the PPR extension (which was on a std variable and not a tracker) which we had to go with in teh short time we had to make a decision and knowing that if we appealed the decision it could take 3 months before we'd get a decsion which could still turn out to be the same. The deal on the PPR resulted in a monthly saving of about 200 which could be wiped out quickly by the bank increasing their std var.

I still think my short term plan was the most sensible for all involved and to be honest I felt that if that's how the banks deal with customers not in arrears then god knows how (badly) they deal with those in arrears.

I can see why so many people in arrears who get deals end up back in arrears.

handlemaster

One or two poster's mentioned commuting too Dublin. I even though it was crazy buying 40 plus minutes away from Dublin during the boom never mind now. They were better off to rent in Dublin and have a life.

Villa05

handlemaster wrote: »

One or two poster's mentioned commuting too Dublin. I even though it was crazy buying 40 plus minutes away from Dublin during the boom never mind now. They were better off to rent in Dublin and have a life.

Hence, the reason the majority feel that high rents and property prices are bad news

gaius c

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So the extra payment for Dublin now looks like it was the smart thing to do because who knew fuel would get more expensive, commuter times increase and cost of keeping a car traveling long distances had a cost.

Fuel prices have dropped actually.

cookie1977 wrote: »

I'm one of those people. It's called pre arrears under the MARP. When you feel that if things dont improve or change then it is sensible to notify the bank about the possibility of going into arrears if help does not come. The restructuring deal I got was a term extension on my PPR which I hope to shorten once my kids are in school and out of full time day care. this period of my life is the most expensive.

I have to say though the negotiations with bank where an eye opener to their operations.

Sorry to hear that Cookie. Hope it works out for you.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I know a group about 12 in one company where we are all roughly the same age and only 3 of us bought homes.

"You can quote this flawed study by a national media publication and I will shoot it down with the superior weight of my anecdotes".