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

D3PO

Villa05 wrote: »

I think people have, forgotten the funding model used by the banks during the bubble.

They borrowed short term and lent long term via mortgages. As the banks short term borrowing come due. The banks will not have the funds to repay as the mortgages are not performing. This is why the imf are worried about the lack of repossesions.

Banks like governments roll over debt. That is not the reason the IMF are worried about the lack of repossessions. Although if you can link me something that says the contrary Id be happy to read it.

You making out that banks will become insolvent because they wont be able to meet short term debt repayments which just isn't the case.

cookie1977

gaius c wrote: »

It's quite simple really. More apartments on the market to rent mean less family homes occupied by four nurses house-sharing and thus more family homes available for actual families.

Em, where do the families evicted get housed then?

cookie1977

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Bad news for the bulls. We are back in the market after exiting the bailout and the ECB said it won't cover any new recapitalisation. There are new stringent tests next year and nobody thinks that AIB will pass. It will need 10B. We need to go to the market for that and it's quite likely they will balk. The deficit increase would spook them. The other option is to recapitalise by selling collateral. That is repossessions.

We have the European stability Mechanism since Sept 2012. No one has said out right Ireland will not be allowed access to it. Germany as said it's unlikely but I suspect if it was needed then Ireland would get access for euro stability.

cookie1977

gaius c wrote: »

Because "smart & ballsy" Sindo writers have an interest in having debt written off while keeping the asset the debt was secured against?


Banks are just like us alright. They have bills to pay too and if they can't pay them, they need to scramble to get the cash together to pay those bills. The only reason they have been able to "hold onto" non-performing loans/assets is because they've been shielded from actually having to pay their way. That's coming to an end soon .

We're talking about the same banks who've stuck their head in the sand for years and who've consistently shown they can't/wont deal with the reality they're in aren't we?

Villa05

D3PO wrote: »

Banks like governments roll over debt.

And what price will they pay if they dont deal with the arrears.
What impact will inaction have on those that are currently paying there mortgages.

gaius c

cookie1977 wrote: »

Em, where do the families evicted get housed then?

They rent where they can afford.

Villa05

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Sorry you said very few people were priced out of the market. I take that to be less than 5%.
Why in any rational sense would those figures indicate anything on pent up demand one way or the other?
If you want a figure go find what the increase on renters is for pent up demand. You would also have to consider inward emigration.

I am not seeing a rational use of information. You might as well put up rain charts to make the same point.

The increase in renters tells me that many are unwilling/unable to buy at current prices. With increases in taxes and rent, the ability to save a deposit is diminishing.

Net migration is negative
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2013/#.UnlHBvnxa_i

The all important population in the 20 to 35 age group is reducing significantly
Sex and Age Group Persons in April of each year
2008 2009 2010 20111 20122 20132
20 - 24 " 373.6 354.4 326.3 298.6 277.7 258.8
25 - 29 " 408.3 400.6 381.6 362.9 341.2 320.0
30 - 34 " 369.5 374.5 381.2 393.4 392.3 387.5


2012 saw the end of a significant tax incentive for those willing to take out a mortgage to buy a house, yet the amount of FTB's who took up that opportunity was only 22% of the amount of FTB Mortgages drawn down in 2005. This is despite a media propaganda machine (that would make Hitler blush) encouraging people to buy

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
FTB 37879 37064 30469 19946 12684 10619 6300 8648 2528
Sales 20884 18252 25091 1097

Economy for the most part is still battered with the exception of exporting multinationals, however this sector only forms a small part of total employment in this country, The majority work for small business and the public sector, both of these areas a suffering greatly.

Yes, there are a large number of people renting, but the figures would suggest that very few have the capacity to buy.

cookie1977

gaius c wrote: »

They rent where they can afford.

And where can they rent? Will they be moved into apartments or to other housing? I dont see how repossessions will suddenly create lots more houses for "actual families". Lets be honest, most apts that "could" be repossesed are already rented out to people. What happens to those renters?

I really dont see how your argument of more apt repossessions means more family homes for people to buy. It doesn't make sense to me.

ArnieSilvia

cookie1977 wrote: »

And where can they rent? Will they be moved into apartments or to other housing? I dont see how repossessions will suddenly create lots more houses for "actual families". Lets be honest, most apts that "could" be repossesed are already rented out to people. What happens to those renters?

I really dont see how your argument of more apt repossessions means more family homes for people to buy. It doesn't make sense to me.

Lots of empty houses in the country, whole estates in fact.

Simply - if they can't/won't pay for their mortgage, they should move away to an area/town where rent is cheap. So their houses would be back on the market. This would give them some breathing space and is more sustainable than living in an expensive house they can't afford.

If I couldn't pay my mortgage that's what I'd do - tough I know but I pay my bills and take responsibility for my/family decisions.
I don't mean here just moving within Dublin but further to the countryside, live cheap on SW and commute once job is found. Once back on track I'd move to Dublin

Seriously, do people actually take it for granted that they have the RIGHT to live where they chose to? In last 10 years I lived in 5 towns in Ireland, that's with small kids etc. 4 years ago I was offered council house (bad move, should have kept renting), put in 10 grand in it of my own money to make it liveable and left it 2 years later because I went where job was and of course I was sad to let the house go but it was not sustainable - for me, wife and kids.

The argument of people having to move is even more unfair in the light of emigration. One family can move country to find job and another one can't move house

cookie1977

No people don't take it as a right. But if you read the posts you'll see I'm not talking here of those loosing their property as it's repossessed. I'm talking about people renting property now at market rates from landlords who then have their property repossessed. These people can still afford to rent in Dublin.

Hence why I say I don't see how apt repossessions will suddenly magically get the whole "more houses for families" argument working.

ArnieSilvia

You're right I suppose, those people who can still afford to live in Dublin will continue to rent, prob. even same apartments they were in.

Still, those on 1+ year in arrears are basically having a laugh, not only at the banks, but on all other people paying their mortgages on time. And it seems that there's quite a few of them.

On the side note, if I was in negative equity paying my mortgage on time, and found out that my "poor" neighbour had lived for free in his mortgaged house (putting money aside) and had half of his debt written off I'd be furious.

The Spider

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

m.

On the side note, if I was in negative equity paying my mortgage on time, and found out that my "poor" neighbour had lived for free in his mortgaged house (putting money aside) and had half of his debt written off I'd be furious.

But what would that have to do with anything? plenty of people furious about plenty of things they see as unfair.

lima

The Spider wrote: »

But what would that have to do with anything? plenty of people furious about plenty of things they see as unfair.

But this would be the most unfair of them all! Not paying for years and then getting a huge amount of money knocked off their mortgage.

Personally I would rather someone like that out on the street (or at least in a sh*tty council house in ballysh*tsville)

D3PO

Villa05 wrote: »

And what price will they pay if they dont deal with the arrears.
What impact will inaction have on those that are currently paying there mortgages.

It will be a hefty price agreed and inaction will cause as already has banks looking to fund these large rates by fleecing customer with charges, increased variable rates etc.

It doesn't mean they will act any quicker on the arrears issue. 5-6 years of inaction should make this every evident to people by now.

As Ive said a few times in this thread already anyway even if banks wanted to liquidate stock and crystalise losses they aren't in a position to do so in bulk. The repossession process is lengthy as can the stays be after a repo order is made. Add to this that doing so in bulk isn't possible as we have a finaite number of courts and a finite number of hours and days for hearings to be made.

So it will always be a trickle effect.

The_Conductor

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

Lots of empty houses in the country, whole estates in fact.

Simply - if they can't/won't pay for their mortgage, they should move away to an area/town where rent is cheap.

To hell, or to Connaught....... 2013 edition........

Fair enough- people shouldn't assume that they have the right to live in a particular location- but a lot of these underoccupied estates are hundreds of miles away. If someone is lucky enough to have a job- upending them to the backend of Leitrim- is only going to put yet another family on the dole- which isn't a solution to any problem either.........

I do agree that people need to accept responsibility for their own actions- and if they are unable to pay their mortgages- that they have no right to hang onto nice properties that taxpayers are graciously allowing them. Perhaps bring in a 20km rule or something- same as in the public sector- where someone can be randomly moved up to 20km away, and have no say whatsoever in the matter.

The Spider

The_Conductor wrote: »

To hell, or to Connaught....... 2013 edition........

Fair enough- people shouldn't assume that they have the right to live in a particular location- but a lot of these underoccupied estates are hundreds of miles away. If someone is lucky enough to have a job- upending them to the backend of Leitrim- is only going to put yet another family on the dole- which isn't a solution to any problem either.........

I do agree that people need to accept responsibility for their own actions- and if they are unable to pay their mortgages- that they have no right to hang onto nice properties that taxpayers are graciously allowing them. Perhaps bring in a 20km rule or something- same as in the public sector- where someone can be randomly moved up to 20km away, and have no say whatsoever in the matter.

You can't randomly move people to an area, you'd need to give them a choice of areas, and the other side of that is, kids are in a school that's 20k away, there's be alot of moving kids out and around the place if repos went ahead the way people here want, they won't by the way banks or government will not do it.

Guarantee you in January still be asking where they are.

jay0109

The Spider wrote: »

You can't randomly move people to an area, you'd need to give them a choice of areas, and the other side of that is, kids are in a school that's 20k away, there's be alot of moving kids out and around the place if repos went ahead the way people here want, they won't by the way banks or government will not do it.

Guarantee you in January still be asking where they are.

20km's is'nt a huge distance to travel to school....my secondary school was a 60km round trip every day, and by Bus Eireann public bus, not a designated school bus

The_Conductor

The Spider wrote: »

You can't randomly move people to an area, you'd need to give them a choice of areas, and the other side of that is, kids are in a school that's 20k away, there's be alot of moving kids out and around the place if repos went ahead the way people here want, they won't by the way banks or government will not do it.

Guarantee you in January still be asking where they are.

We have half a million (or however many) public sector employees- who we can be required to redeploy at random up to 100km from their place of employment (just checked the Croke Park 2 agreement). They don't get choice in the matter. Why can't we likewise compel people holding onto housing stock in desirable areas to vacate it- and provide them with an apartment or whatever, in the midlands? Surely whats good for the goose is good for the gander?

cookie1977

Opinions are like...

cookie1977

In dublin 20km's is huge for a school trip. Sorry.

The_Conductor

cookie1977 wrote: »

In dublin 20km's is huge for a school trip. Sorry.

Not any more than a 100km round-trip for an employee might be- thats 1000km a week? Why are these people getting special treatment- when other classes of people- like taxpaying employees in the example I gave- are making sacrifices to keep them in their homes in desireable locations? Also- the argument given to people forced to redeploy- is sure you don't have to commute- just move to the new location....... I repeat- whats good for the goose has to be good enough for the gander.

cookie1977

The_Conductor wrote: »

Not any more than a 100km round-trip for an employee might be- thats 1000km a week? Why are these people getting special treatment- when other classes of people- like taxpaying employees in the example I gave- are making sacrifices to keep them in their homes in desireable locations? Also- the argument given to people forced to redeploy- is sure you don't have to commute- just move to the new location....... I repeat- whats good for the goose has to be good enough for the gander.

The reasons for the long journey are different. People who bought in areas outside dublin did so knowingly (and maybe out of necessity yes but still knowingly). You're talking about uprooting someone in dublin which at it's greatest is about 30miles long and moving them up to 20kms away from where they have lived and went to school with friends (talking of children here) and you think this is reasonable? Not everyone who has their home repossessed is a scrounger living for free. These are normal people too who are trying to make the most of what they have. Are likely to be under tremendous financial and mental stress and on top of loosing their home they are forced to move up to 20kms away from their former life.

Do you not think this could have tremendous repercussions for family stability and mental health? Not to mention a further possible financial burden of long distance travel back to schools and possibly jobs?

20kms in dublin (40 round trip) could be 2hrs in peak traffic.

The OECD are getting more concerned about the effect the prolonged recession and taxes and cuts are having on a generation of people's mental health. What we do now could have enormous consequences in the future.

lima

cookie1977 wrote: »

The reasons for the long journey are different. People who bought in areas outside dublin did so knowingly (and maybe out of necessity yes but still knowingly). You're talking about uprooting someone in dublin which at it's greatest is about 30miles long and moving them up to 20kms away from where they have lived and went to school with friends (talking of children here) and you think this is reasonable? Not everyone who has their home repossessed is a scrounger living for free. These are normal people too who are trying to make the most of what they have. Are likely to be under tremendous financial and mental stress and on top of loosing their home they are forced to move up to 20kms away from their former life.

Do you not think this could have tremendous repercussions for family stability and mental health? Not to mention a further possible financial burden of long distance travel back to schools and possibly jobs?

20kms in dublin (40 round trip) could be 2hrs in peak traffic.

The OECD are getting more concerned about the effect the prolonged recession and taxes and cuts are having on a generation of people's mental health. What we do now could have enormous consequences in the future.

What about the mental health of people who have to endure making sacrifices to keep people in desirable locations?

It is highly stressful on mental health to witness people living for free whilst property is rising due to lack of housing stock.

Anyway talking about mental health in this context is a first world problem when you consider all the children starving in other parts of the world having to live in tents.

cookie1977

lima wrote: »

What about the mental health of people who have to endure making sacrifices to keep people in desirable locations?

It is highly stressful on mental health to witness people living for free whilst property is rising due to lack of housing stock.

Anyway talking about mental health in this context is a first world problem when you consider all the children starving in other parts of the world having to live in tents.

Can you provide me with stats on the numbers of people living for free so I can join you?

And if you want to stray off point you're on your own.

lima

cookie1977 wrote: »

Can you provide me with stats on the numbers of people living for free so I can join you?

And if you want to stray off point you're on your own.

My point is that you cant use mental health as justification for people not to be moved from their homes. It's as bad as the 'ah but hey have a small family' excuse.

cookie1977

lima wrote: »

My point is that you cant use mental health as justification for people not to be moved from their homes. It's as bad as the 'ah but hey have a small family' excuse.

I'd disagree completely. And it's not moved out of their homes, it's the idea that they should be moved 20kms away (or further according to some people). Risk assessment and impact analysis would need to be performed before we start arbitrarily moving people half a county away.

The_Conductor

cookie1977 wrote: »

The reasons for the long journey are different.

How so? Many people who were working in Dublin have had their employment moved, with no input whatsoever from them- to locations like Portlaoise, Tullamore, Athlone, Mullingar, Longford etc. These are all around the 100km mark away from Dublin- and the people had no input into the moves.

cookie1977 wrote: »

People who bought in areas outside dublin did so knowingly (and maybe out of necessity yes but still knowingly).

What has this got to do with people who knowingly bought outside Dublin. I'm talking about people being forced with no input to redeploy up to 100km away. Its 1000km a week.......... Doesn't matter where they are living. It may be Dublin. It may be Letterkenny- the fact is- they have all of a sudden with no input been told- hey you- you're to redeploy 100km away.

cookie1977 wrote: »

You're talking about uprooting someone in dublin which at it's greatest is about 30miles long and moving them up to 20kms away from where they have lived and went to school with friends (talking of children here) and you think this is reasonable?

I never actually mentioned Dublin- but it is equally valid an example. I am not saying its reasonable or unreasonable. I am saying- if 500,000 public sector, tax paying, employees can be forced to redeploy without consultation- up to 100km from their current locations- why are we molly coddling these people in properties they can't afford to pay for- when we're shafting taxpayers who are managing to pay their way (to one extent or another). 20km from one part of Dublin to another- is still less a commute than the person from Leixlip being forced to work in Athlone, instead of Celbridge.....?

cookie1977 wrote: »

Not everyone who has their home repossessed is a scrounger living for free. These are normal people too who are trying to make the most of what they have.

Who said they were scroungers? I said making them move to the arse-end of nowhere, where there was no work available, would be counter productive- as they'd probably end up unemployed (if they had work to begin with). Read my previous post.

cookie1977 wrote: »

Are likely to be under tremendous financial and mental stress and on top of loosing their home they are forced to move up to 20kms away from their former life.

Lots of people are being forced to move. Why are these people so special that they deserve to be molly coddled?

cookie1977 wrote: »

Do you not think this could have tremendous repercussions for family stability and mental health? Not to mention a further possible financial burden of long distance travel back to schools and possibly jobs?

No more so- than a relocation has for anyone else- and there are half a million workers with families who can be relocated under Croke Park 2- without consultation. Do you see what I'm saying? Once again- its special treatment for one group- and lets shovel the crap at another- because its politically expedient to do so.

cookie1977 wrote: »

20kms in dublin (40 round trip) could be 2hrs in peak traffic.

Yes- and 100km off main roads to Athlone- is probably similar- and you'd burn a hell of a lot more fuel if commuting. If you wanted to save time- you could take a toll road- and incur an extra 30 quid a week in expenses.

cookie1977 wrote: »

The OECD are getting more concerned about the effect the prolonged recession and taxes and cuts are having on a generation of people's mental health. What we do now could have enormous consequences in the future.

Mental health? The people suffering most with mental health issues- including alcoholism- are actually those lucky enough to be in employment- and if we randomly shunt them 100km away- how is that going to help matters? Why should people who can't pay their mortgage get special treatment over workers who are barely surviving- but are managing to pay their mortgage?

Woodville56

Reading latest posts in this thread is quite nauseating ! Is this where we've gotten to , ludicrous suggestions about relocating defaulters etc!!! Ever considered the social consequences of such hair brained ideas ??? All the while, no such castigation or banishment mentioned for the other perpetrators of the mess we're in- bad / negligent government and similar financial regulation . I thought on first reading it was 1st April again !!
And before anyone asks, yes I'm a taxpayer and thankfully not one of those some contributors to this forum would relocate in the next "plantation" in our history ! Get real folks !!

cookie1977

Did I mention I hate when people breakdown posts. I can read you know

I'm not re quoting all of that as it'll look ridiculous. In summary my posts where not referring to your comments alone (although I've addressed some of yours). It was the general comments from people thinking that moving people out miles away from where they were simple because the shouldn't feel entitled to live where they were prior to repossesion is some sort of a good thing.

I'd love some stats on what you've said re employed people suffering "most". Not forgetting too that people who loose their homes may also be still in employment.

The people moved under croke park, are you having a laugh there? (maybe you have figures for the numbers that did get moved as I suspect there's few to none!).

I'm not against a move as long as some sort of impact study is done. As yes I do believe that without some sort of common sense, moves like those proposed by some here could be very bad.

Orlaw3136

When did it get more complicated than the basic proposition that if you can't afford to live where you live you have to move to somewhere you can afford to live ?

Ooooooooooooh riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...I live in Ireland. Of course.