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

jmayo

ezra_pound wrote: »

Well in order to ensure that the economy stays productive after you retire , yes.

Retire ????
When ?

Shure aren't we going to be working longer to repay all the debts run up by the great Irish productive economy of 2002 to 2007.

lima

ezra_pound wrote: »

Well in order to ensure that the economy stays productive after you retire , yes.

Really? Assuming you are a woman, you would put your body through pregnancy just to ensure that the good people of Ireland will have tax creators long after you are dead?

ah now stop messing me about! :rolleyes:

moxin

ezra_pound wrote: »

Well in order to ensure that the economy stays productive after you retire , yes.

How do you plan to stop them emigrating like the present 20's generation?

ChRoMe

Zamboni wrote: »

There is no such thing as poverty in the Republic of Ireland.

:eek:

You would make even Thatcher blush.

cookie1977

Another reason to have kids:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1127/489511-tanaiste-tax/

Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore has said families who bore the brunt of the recession should see a dividend from the improvement in the economy and the State's finances.
Asked about the possibility of tax breaks, Mr Gilmore said that it was only reasonable that as things improved, hard-pressed families would have some share of the gain.

Calina

cookie, sorry I don't agree that Gilmore suggesting he might hand out a few tax breaks is a good reason to have kids. Sorry and all that.

Theoretically it is beneficial for society to be generating children. But it woudl be much easier to do that if housing were cheap.

Right now it's not it's merely high compared to stratospherically crazy expensive.

We shouldn't be supporting the having of kids via tax breaks. We should be supporting it by the having of not crazy expensive housing. If you're paying 400E a month for housing instead of 2000E, having children is suddenly a lot more viable and needs a lot less central support. Cost of living in general would be down a bit.

I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

In the meantime, I gather property prices in Dublin are up 15% yoy per CSO today.

This is not evidence of a rational market. It's evidence of a market in serious trouble, probably because property is not returning to the market even though it's also not being paid for by its putative owner.

cookie1977

Ah I agree of course. Any tax breaks should be across the board (just like the pain) rather than focused on any particular group or section of society

cookie1977

One of the things I was most suprised about in the stats was that:

Dublin apartment prices were 18% higher when compared with the same month of 2012.

That's a big jump for apt in the city considering house prices in Dublin grew less at 14.6% over last year. We've had mostly talk about the dearth and increases in house prices in Dublin but it seems apts are making gains as well. I find that puzzling.

byronbay2

cookie1977 wrote: »

Another reason to have kids:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1127/489511-tanaiste-tax/

Everything is coming up "HomeOwner"!

What with house prices rising and tax breaks on the horizon, I am seriously considering the possibility of starting to pay my mortgage again - assuming I will get the arrears written off, of course! I think I'll continue to play "wait and see" for the time being though - I don't want to jump too soon and Christmas is just around the corner!

_Kaiser_

cookie1977 wrote: »

You dont sound like you want fairness. You sound like you want your pound of flesh. As I've said you equate all non payers as all being the same which is far from the truth. You want them to have to pay back all the debt over their lives no matter what. Even after house repossession and sale you still want them to pay back the rest of the debt. I pity you to be honest.

Just to pick up on this one...

What exactly is so wrong with expecting people who (completely voluntarily) agreed to pay back a debt they took on to actually do so?

Why exactly should "someone else" pay for this person's decision through higher taxation and cost of living?

Why exactly should the people above be "forgiven" their debt/sins just because it's related to property? Should someone with a personal loan, credit card, finance agreement etc not be "forgiven" too then?

As I keep saying on this topic, I have every sympathy for someone who is struggling to pay their debts.. but it's their debts, not mine nor anyone else's.

Part of being an adult (which all of the above people were/are) is living with the consequences of your decisions - good AND bad!

You want to know who *I* pity? Any poor fool who didn't go mad in the "good times", because it seems the lesson to be learned is that paying your way, doing things above board and in the "right" way just makes you a gullible fool in Ireland who's ripe for being screwed over again and again to keep the status quo.

cookie1977

The debt is there and they should pay it back but surely if you loose your home and there's still outstanding debt and perhaps you have no job do you still think that the outstanding debt should be hung on the debtors until it's fully repaid? While wealthy people who can use the system to go in to bankruptcy for a year take advantage of this in the UK.

Many people who are in serious arrears and facing repossession are doing so as a result of the recession. They lost their jobs, took wage cuts, taxes etc... Then the banks got bailed out rightly or wrongly. In the most capitalistic society in the world (the US) those in arrears can hand back the keys and that (in terms of the outstanding debt) is the end of it. The UK has decent bankruptcy laws. What do we have? PIPs.

Without going over everything in this mega thread again. Getting blood out of a stone will not work for society. Yes we are responsible for our life choices but people have to still exist after all this. Banks (and yes that means the tax payer since they decided to prop up the banks) have to bare some of the burden.

_Kaiser_

cookie1977 wrote: »

The debt is there and they should pay it back but surely if you loose your home and there's still outstanding debt and perhaps you have no job do you still think that the outstanding debt should be hung on the debtors until it's fully repaid? While wealthy people who can use the system to go in to bankruptcy for a year take advantage of this in the UK.

Your argument then is that because the wealthy can use a "get out of jail free" card, the rest should be able to as well? How about we demand accountability at all levels of our society - not just for those who don't play golf with TD's.

Many people who are in serious arrears and facing repossession are doing so as a result of the recession. They lost their jobs, took wage cuts, taxes etc... Then the banks got bailed out rightly or wrongly. In the most capitalistic society in the world (the US) those in arrears can hand back the keys and that (in terms of the outstanding debt) is the end of it. The UK has decent bankruptcy laws. What do we have? PIPs.

I agree with you on the last part - but the solution there is to lobby for proper reform, not allow even more people to abuse the system.

Without going over everything in this mega thread again. Getting blood out of a stone will not work for society. Yes we are responsible for our life choices but people have to still exist after all this. Banks (and yes that means the tax payer since they decided to prop up the banks) have to bare some of the burden.

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't remember the decision to implement the bank guarantee OR the decision to turn the debt into sovereign debt being put to the public - actually, I remember the current government being elected based on the promise that this WOULDN'T happen and that a new alternative approach would be taken.

I'm not saying that people in trouble shouldn't be accommodated with a realistic payment agreement that changes according to their needs/ability to repay over time - but yes, every cent they took on is theirs to repay, no-one else's and if it takes them till they retire to do so then that's how it should be.

Maybe then we might learn that easy credit and buying and selling overpriced property to each other ISN'T the way to the promised land after all.. because even a cursory skim through the various threads on this forum and other sections of Boards will show that many haven't actually learned a thing!

cookie1977

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Your argument then is that because the wealthy can use a "get out of jail free" card, the rest should be able to as well? How about we demand accountability at all levels of our society - not just for those who don't play golf with TD's.


I agree with you on the last part - but the solution there is to lobby for proper reform, not allow even more people to abuse the system.


Unless I'm mistaken, I don't remember the decision to implement the bank guarantee OR the decision to turn the debt into sovereign debt being put to the public - actually, I remember the current government being elected based on the promise that this WOULDN'T happen and that a new alternative approach would be taken.

I'm not saying that people in trouble shouldn't be accommodated with a realistic payment agreement that changes according to their needs/ability to repay over time - but yes, every cent they took on is theirs to repay, no-one else's and if it takes them till they retire to do so then that's how it should be.

Maybe then we might learn that easy credit and buying and selling overpriced property to each other ISN'T the way to the promised land after all.. because even a cursory skim through the various threads on this forum and other sections of Boards will show that many haven't actually learned a thing!

I dont see how people are getting away with it. Lets say we do hold them to the outstanding debt after repossession and sale. How much do you think they'll be paying back, and for how long?
Do the banks not need to be made share some responsibility for giving ridiculous mortgages with out any proper moral hazard or risk analysis done? The people who loose their house through repossession/bankruptcy etc have taken a hit. Where is the banks hit? Is there one? Are people happy with that?

The public voted the parties in. The public did not come out on mass and protest at the decisions being taken. Are we culpable as to the situation we are in now? I think so. As far as I'm concerned everyone was asleep at the wheel (governments, regulators, europe, people taking out mortgages huge moitrgages) but it seems it's being lumbered on some people more than others.

gaius c

cookie1977 wrote: »

One of the things I was most suprised about in the stats was that:



That's a big jump for apt in the city considering house prices in Dublin grew less at 14.6% over last year. We've had mostly talk about the dearth and increases in house prices in Dublin but it seems apts are making gains as well. I find that puzzling.

Folk with retirement lump sums or other large amounts of money buying in cash. Couple of reasons for this:
1. Interest rates on deposit are pitiful
2. There is the risk of a Cypress-style bail-in. It might be a small risk but deposit rates are so poor that it's not worth taking the chance.
3. Yields (on paper at least) are far superior on investment properties at the moment.
4. Banks are very slow to lend against apartments thus leaving the field open for cash-rich investors.

I know this for a fact and I do also have an interest in this regard.

cookie1977

gaius c wrote: »

Folk with retirement lump sums or other large amounts of money buying in cash. Couple of reasons for this:
1. Interest rates on deposit are pitiful
2. There is the risk of a Cypress-style bail-in. It might be a small risk but deposit rates are so poor that it's not worth taking the chance.
3. Yields (on paper at least) are far superior on investment properties at the moment.
4. Banks are very slow to lend against apartments thus leaving the field open for cash-rich investors.

I know this for a fact and I do also have an interest in this regard.

1. yes I'd agree on that.
(top point on retirees). Really you think retired Irish people are buying apts? I'd be shocked it that were through.
2. That to me is more fear then an actual real threat
3. Again yes but it's no easy task being a landlord particularly when NAMA (might) could release a fair amount of apts on the market at any time which could shock the system.
4. You're making assumptions a little here. We dont know the break down accurately to be honest. IBF says in sept month on month mortgage approvals are down 5% but year on year are up 10%.

_Kaiser_

cookie1977 wrote: »

I dont see how people are getting away with it. Lets say we do hold them to the outstanding debt after repossession and sale. How much do you think they'll be paying back, and for how long?
Do the banks not need to be made share some responsibility for giving ridiculous mortgages with out any proper moral hazard or risk analysis done? The people who loose their house through repossession/bankruptcy etc have taken a hit. Where is the banks hit? Is there one? Are people happy with that?

The public voted the parties in. The public did not come out on mass and protest at the decisions being taken. Are we culpable as to the situation we are in now? I think so. As far as I'm concerned everyone was asleep at the wheel (governments, regulators, europe, people taking out mortgages huge moitrgages) but it seems it's being lumbered on some people more than others.

So basically your argument comes down to the idea that "everyone" was responsible, so "everyone" should pay?

Well I (and many more like me) didn't go mad in the good times, I pay my bills first and then I spend what's left (which isn't much these days!), and I have always paid back what I owe - even if it means calling the bank to restructure the payments when times were tough (as I too was out of work for a year a few years back), but at no time did I cry that "I was asleep" - I just accepted that it had to be done just as I accepted the debt/loan in the first place.

I'm not saying this to say "wow look at me, aren't I great" - rather it's to point out that I was raised that you pay your way and you pay what you owe like many other people in this country. But it seems in "New Ireland" the motto is "can't someone ELSE do it?" and as a result I (and those others) end up paying for the so-called "sleepwalking" of others anyway and THAT to me is who this is being lumbered on... NOT those who are still living in houses they don't own and aren't paying for!

cookie1977

So what would you do when someone has lost their house and still have debt (and possibly lost their job). Would you seek out the rest of the debt until fully paid?

_Kaiser_

cookie1977 wrote: »

So what would you do when someone has lost their house and still have debt (and possibly lost their job). Would you seek out the rest of the debt until fully paid?

Yep, just as I will have to repay my debts until they're cleared - despite unemployment, 2 different jobs since then, lower salary, higher taxes, higher costs of living, changed personal circumstances etc

It'll take me the guts of the next 10 years but it'll be done because that's what I agreed to - not you, nor anyone else.

cookie1977

Well that is where we disagree for sure. Repossess yes, bankruptcy for a a year yes but that's it.

_Kaiser_

cookie1977 wrote: »

Well that is where we disagree for sure. Repossess yes, bankruptcy for a a year yes but that's it.

But who pays the outstanding debt in that case because it doesn't just disappear

cookie1977

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

But who pays the outstanding debt in that case because it doesn't just disappear

Written off via profits of the company or as a loss by the company in a normal functioning economy or via the tax payer in our economy. Possibly to be recouperated via a sale of the bank or levies applied to the bank upon return to profitability by said bank.

Note AIB expects to return to profit next year:
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/aibs-duffy-says-bank-will-be-back-in-profit-next-year-29783506.html

The Spider

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

But who pays the outstanding debt in that case because it doesn't just disappear

The taxpayer, just as the taxpayer pays for alcoholics, drug addicts through hospital care and treatment.

The taxpayer pays for a lot of things that various groups mightn't want taxes spent on.

The debts are being written off anyway so it doesn't matter, I will absolutely guarantee you that any house that's repossessed will have the debt written off, and that's just as it should be.

lima

Cookie and Spider, you truly believe someone else should pay if you can't afford to pay your debts yet you both have more than one property and you certainly won't be sharing any future profits on them when you sell them. You sum up all that is wrong with this country.

lima

gaius c wrote: »

Folk with retirement lump sums or other large amounts of money buying in cash. Couple of reasons for this:
1. Interest rates on deposit are pitiful
2. There is the risk of a Cypress-style bail-in. It might be a small risk but deposit rates are so poor that it's not worth taking the chance.
3. Yields (on paper at least) are far superior on investment properties at the moment.
4. Banks are very slow to lend against apartments thus leaving the field open for cash-rich investors.

I know this for a fact and I do also have an interest in this regard.

I went to see an apt last week and everyone there were in their 60's and we're climbing over each other to buy it, I overheard them saying hey were cash buyers. As someone looking around for an apt I certainly wouldn't have lived in it as it was so old inside, but they seemed adamant to pay the asking price. Pretty crazy but totally makes sense, I'd do the same, I have a lump sum to put towards it but the prices old people are paying for old apts is crazy

El_Dangeroso

I came across this graph:



Notice how we are smack back in the peak of a demographic bubble as far as usual FTB age is concerned (I'd say 30-34).

If you were patient enough to wait 6 years I'd say you'd get a nice bargain.

delthedriver

Irish House Prices up 15% in Dublin; Mortgages issued at 1974 level
FinFacts Ireland ‎- 7 hours ago
Irish House Prices rose 15% in Dublin in the year to October 2013 while residential property prices at a national level increased by 6.1%.;)

Woodville56

delthedriver wrote: »

Irish House Prices up 15% in Dublin; Mortgages issued at 1974 level
FinFacts Ireland ‎- 7 hours ago
Irish House Prices rose 15% in Dublin in the year to October 2013 while residential property prices at a national level increased by 6.1%.;)

TV3 show Midweek joining the "talk it up " house price increase frenzy !! Just now

The Spider

Prices won't drop, they can't in Dublin anyway, CFI says they're at least three years away from meeting current demand.

The only way for supply to increase is for prices to keep rising, no one is going to sell their house while in negative equity, especially if they can make the mortgage payments.

earlyevening

Prices will keep rising despite lack of credit and falling incomes??

I dont think so.

You can have all the demand you like with restricted supply, but if you dont have any money prices cant rise.

The cash cant last forever.

JohnFalstaff

earlyevening wrote: »

Prices will keep rising despite lack of credit and falling incomes??

I dont think so.

You can have all the demand you like with restricted supply, but if you dont have any money prices cant rise.

The cash cant last forever.

Credit is more available than you might think, especially compared to this time two years ago. The banks are lending if they deem the loan application is worthwhile.