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

jmayo

The Spider wrote: »

What you don't seem to understand is that the banks want house prices to go higher, so does NAMA, they're not going to move on anyone until it makes sense in terms of the return they'll get for the asset, the country wants prices to go up, it improves consumer sentiment and people start spending in the economy creating jobs.

Are we the only economy or people who have this warped attitude that property prices must be high in order for the economy to be well.
I think the norm is usually that property follows the economy not fooking drives it. :rolleyes:

And yes you are right that the banks, NAMA and by extension the government have been hoping that prices can increase to get them out of the mess.
They have been hoping that for 5 odd years and now a bit of good news about a fraciton of the market is being spun to try and jumpstart the market.
Menawhile in reality the whole thing is a house of cards that coudl topple at the least thing.

The Spider wrote: »

Sure it's not great for those looking to buy, but for those who bought it is great, they don't feel they have to save every penny, just in case they lose their job, they see more jobs being created, and if they have to move they can sell their house and not be in debt.

Basically you are telling current or future buyers that they must suffer to insure those who overspent in the past are rewarded for their bad decisions.

That attitude reminds me of our public sector where new entrants salaries, pensions, conditions etc were sacrificed to keep the encumbents in a fashion they have become accustomed to.
That is storing up problems for the future.

jay0109

The Spider wrote: »

Exactly, I'm not going to stop paying my mortgage because people lost their houses and had the remaining debt forgiven.

I want to keep my house and believe it or not so do the vast majority of people who bought, also I'd imagine it'd be hard to get another mortgage after your house was repossessed.

That contradicts a lot of what you've said on this thread....you've said repossessions won't happen to any great extent etc etc
And now your basically saying that not paying your mortgage would mean you'd eventually lose all:o

roro2

cookie1977 wrote: »

Looks to me that the IBF are compiling that data solely from DAFT:

Not the quarterly mortgage drawdowns, or the monthly mortgage approvals - these are bank data.

cookie1977

roro2 wrote: »

Not the quarterly mortgage drawdowns, or the monthly mortgage approvals - these are bank data.

We're talking of the executor sales here only.

moxin

Long term arrears up again at about 99,000. All types of arrears at 141,000, the numbers of both short term and long term are horrific and yet we have a property market price frenzy trying to take off again!!

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/mortgage-arrears-decline-for-first-time-since-bubble-burst-1.1610444

The number of accounts in arrears of more than 90 days stood at 99,189, up 1,315 on the previous quarter however the Central Bank said this increase was driven entirely by accounts in arrears over 720 days with all other categories declining.

The Spider

jay0109 wrote: »

That contradicts a lot of what you've said on this thread....you've said repossessions won't happen to any great extent etc etc
And now your basically saying that not paying your mortgage would mean you'd eventually lose all:o

No I still don't believe repossessions will happen to any great extent, my point however is that if a house is repossessed then the debt should die with the repossession.

I've said it before that repossessions won't happen in any numbers until prices rise to a point where the bank doesn't lose money, which is good for the owners because the negative equity is being eaten away.

cookie1977

moxin wrote: »

Long term arrears up again at about 99,000. All types of arrears at 141,000, the numbers of both short term and long term are horrific and yet we have a property market price frenzy trying to take off again!!

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/mortgage-arrears-decline-for-first-time-since-bubble-burst-1.1610444

PDH properties

http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/mortgagearrears/Pages/Data.aspx

The arrears in 720 days will continue to increase albeit at a slower pace until deals are done or the property is repossessed. This is not surprising in the least. What we want to see is the new arrears numbers of up to 90 days and in the three months from June to Sept 2013 this has fallen by 2687 (45018 to 42331) a drop of 5% which is the largest drop since the repossession. Certainly a positive water mark.

Those in arrears of between 91-180 days has also fallen by 1000 (17612 to 16680) a drop of almost 6%. The rest of the arrears figures 180-360 and 361-720 also dropped.

BTL arrears are also down in between 0-180 days arrears with only the 180 days or over rising slightly.

To me this is all positive. The first real signs of arrears decreases in a long long time.

Villa05

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?

There seems to be an attitude here that loosing the house and writing off the outstanding loan is somehow sharing the pain between the borrower and the the bank. This could not be further from the truth. Sharing the pain would involve the borrower loosing the house and the outstanding mortgage balance being shared 50/50 by the bank and the borrower

Writing off the full balance after the sale of the houses should be reserved for the absolute worst cases where unemployment or significant income loss has occurred. all fully verified of course

The current situation is allowing the well heeled to get substantial write offs while genuine hard cases continue to suffer

cookie1977

Villa05 wrote: »

There seems to be an attitude here that loosing the house and writing off the outstanding loan is somehow sharing the pain between the borrower and the the bank. This could not be further from the truth. Sharing the pain would involve the borrower loosing the house and the outstanding mortgage balance being shared 50/50 by the bank and the borrower

Writing off the full balance after the sale of the houses should be reserved for the absolute worst cases where unemployment or significant income loss has occurred. all fully verified of course

The current situation is allowing the well heeled to get substantial write offs while genuine hard cases continue to suffer

that's all in your opinion. Other societies operate in this way. America you hand back the keys, the UK has reasonable bankruptcy laws. What you and a lot of others want here just isn't in our society (thankfully). Yes debtors need to suffer. But I (and to be honest I'd say the majority of people in this country) are happy that they loose their homes and any outstanding debt (unless they're still mega rich) from the mortgage that still exists after the sale is written off.

I dont know what society operates the way you want here to operate. Any examples? Honest question.

Villa05

cookie1977 wrote: »

PDH properties

http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/mortgagearrears/Pages/Data.aspx

The arrears in 720 days will continue to increase albeit at a slower pace until deals are done or the property is repossessed. This is not surprising in the least. What we want to see is the new arrears numbers of up to 90 days and in the three months from June to Sept 2013 this has fallen by 2687 (45018 to 42331) a drop of 5% which is the largest drop since the repossession. Certainly a positive water mark.

Those in arrears of between 91-180 days has also fallen by 1000 (17612 to 16680) a drop of almost 6%. The rest of the arrears figures 180-360 and 361-720 also dropped.

BTL arrears are also down in between 0-180 days arrears with only the 180 days or over rising slightly.

To me this is all positive. The first real signs of arrears decreases in a long long time.

:eek: Nearly 60,000 a year or more behind on repayments with more than half of them more than 2 years behind, growing by 10% from the previous quarter. This is catastrophic, nothing positive and I have not seen the BTL figures yet

These are the figures that are well into repossession territory

cookie1977

Villa05 wrote: »

:eek: Nearly 60,000 a year or more behind on repayments with more than half of them more than 2 years behind, growing by 10% from the previous quarter. This is catastrophic, nothing positive and I have not seen the BTL figures yet

These are the figures that are well into repossession territory

As opposed to more increases across the board it is positive. Glass half full glass half empty. It all depends on what you want to see. BTL figures are in the link I posted. I'm not saying these are wonderful by any means. But I'm sure as hell glad we're still not seeing increases across the board.

The more than 720 days in arrears are really hopeless mortgages. They will continue to increase as those just behind slump into this group. There probably isn't a lot of hope for them but at the start of arrears the figures are falling (2 quarters now with increases in those falls)

Villa05

cookie1977 wrote: »

that's all in your opinion. Other societies operate in this way. America you hand back the keys, the UK has reasonable bankruptcy laws. What you and a lot of others want here just isn't in our society (thankfully). Yes debtors need to suffer. But I (and to be honest I'd say the majority of people in this country) are happy that they loose their homes and any outstanding debt (unless they're still mega rich) from the mortgage that still exists after the sale is written off.

I dont know what society operates the way you want here to operate. Any examples? Honest question.

I don't propose suffering, I propose fairness. Any debt forgiveness has to be funded by the state. The state has decided to take from Health, Education and Welfare to fund this.
How many recent graduates can afford Health Care, 2 Cars, Premium TV and in one particular case rent of a plush SCD Address because that is the life she had become accustomed to.
This the type of lifestyle the system says is fair to a person(s) who have received substantial debt write-down. I disagree.

These people jump on the backs of people genuinely suffering to get a free ride to debt forgiveness for themselves. Is that the kind of Society you want. I don't think so

cookie1977

Villa05 wrote: »

I don't propose suffering, I propose fairness. Any debt forgiveness has to be funded by the state. The state has decided to take from Health, Education and Welfare to fund this.
How many recent graduates can afford Health Care, 2 Cars, Premium TV and in one particular case rent of a plush SCD Address because that is the life she had become accustomed to.
This the type of lifestyle the system says is fair to a person(s) who have received substantial debt write-down. I disagree.

These people jump on the backs of people genuinely suffering to get a free ride to debt forgiveness for themselves. Is that the kind of Society you want. I don't think so

You're being facetious. I do not for an instant believe that there are significant numbers of people living the life of Reilly without a care in the world while in serious arrears.

The Spider

Villa05 wrote: »

I don't propose suffering, I propose fairness. Any debt forgiveness has to be funded by the state. The state has decided to take from Health, Education and Welfare to fund this.
How many recent graduates can afford Health Care, 2 Cars, Premium TV and in one particular case rent of a plush SCD Address because that is the life she had become accustomed to.
This the type of lifestyle the system says is fair to a person(s) who have received substantial debt write-down. I disagree.

These people jump on the backs of people genuinely suffering to get a free ride to debt forgiveness for themselves. Is that the kind of Society you want. I don't think so

The debt gets wiped out or it doesn't, someone loses their job and has the debt written off when they lose the house?

Someone else loses the house, manages to keep their job so has to pay back a massive debt for the rest of their lives, they'd be better off losing their job, then when the debt's written off get a new job.

Doesn't sound fair to me, but like I say doesn't matter anyway, banks are doing deals and wiping out the debt.

lima

The Spider wrote: »

The debt gets wiped out or it doesn't, someone loses their job and has the debt written off when they lose the house?

Someone else loses the house, manages to keep their job so has to pay back a massive debt for the rest of their lives, they'd be better off losing their job, then when the debt's written off get a new job.

Doesn't sound fair to me, but like I say doesn't matter anyway, banks are doing deals and wiping out the debt.

If someone loses a house and has the means to pay back the rest of the money they owe then they should do that. It is in no way fair that I should have to pay taxes towards some stranger that I wouldn't care about whether they were alive or dead.

Banks are also (finally) repossessing thank god. A few places out there but the begrudgers have ripped out the kitchens

MythicalMadMan

lima wrote: »

If someone loses a house and has the means to pay back the rest of the money they owe then they should do that. It is in no way fair that I should have to pay taxes towards some stranger that I wouldn't care about whether they were alive or dead.

Banks are also (finally) repossessing thank god. A few places out there but the begrudgers have ripped out the kitchens

*scottish accent*

You may take our house, but you will never take OUR KITCHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN

riclad

Everyone seems to hate landlords,
i know its stupid, there,s alot of people bought houses,
for say 150k,,
house is now worth 80k,
as an example.
The rent is maybe 80- 90 per cent of the mortgage per month.
BECAUSE of negative equity ,they cant sell up,
so they are working for nothing,
profit = zero cent ,and they might still be liable for tax in the future.
IF some one does,nt pay loan for 4 years,
the bank can go to court ,repossess the property.
MAYBE they do,nt have the staff to handle 1000,s of empty propertys ,or are afraid of causing more price drops in the market by mass repossessions.

If we had no landlords ,
WE, d have no rental market ,
a rental market is part of a strong economy.

A lot of single people prefer to rent for various reasons.
even if they are on a good wage.

I presume new insolvency act, will see more people giving houses
back to the bank ,
especially btl investors.

Gloomtastic!

cookie1977 wrote: »

You're being facetious. I do not for an instant believe that there are significant numbers of people living the life of Reilly without a care in the world while in serious arrears.

The only person I personally know of who has not paid their mortgage for a couple of years, is a former developer whose wife and my wife are good friends. They've been threatened with eviction for at least 18 months but nothing's happened yet.

Last year, they were pretty tame, he was still going on the lash two/three nights a week, they'd eat out once, maybe twice a week. No holidays though.
This year however, they're still eating out and going on the lash but they've also had their week cruise, a good few weekends away, and he's just come back from a week golfing in Spain with his mates.

When you have children, if they do wrong, then you tell them if they don't stop then you will punish them. However, when they repeat their misbehaviour and you don't carry out your threat then the kid doesn't believe anything you say and does what he likes.

This is exactly what is happening to 100,000-odd mortgagees who, by this stage, think they are invincible. Spare the rod, spoil the child.......

riclad

I,D say the no of people who stopped paying anything is quite small.
if you stopped paying your loan ,your credit rating will be destroyed.
IS,nt the situation with most developers ,they have closed down their business , as a limited company ,
or their assets have been taken over by the banks .
or they left the country , and declared bankruptcy in the uk,or the usa.
Theres many mortgage holders who just switched over to paying interest only,or else they are paying the bank x per cent of the loan,
so in 20 years ,they,ll still owe 100k plus.
WHAT they can afford to pay.
THE banks were reckless ,and stupid in lending in the boom,
causing a property bubble,,

which burst,

And now you just want to blame 100 thousand mortgage holders.
THE banks, regulators,dept of finance deserve at least half the blame
for this situation.
look at those people on the anglo tapes,
i,m ok, ill retire on a nice pension ,
the taxpayer ,government will take care of me.
or else ,ill sink the economy .

and many of these banker s,civil servants ,
politicians are retiring early on big pensions,
i,m alright jack.

_Kaiser_

riclad wrote:

THE banks were reckless ,and stupid in lending in the boom,
causing a property bubble,

True.. but on the other side of it, no-one dragged people into banks and FORCED them to sign up for ridiculous mortgages.
No-one FORCED a lot of these people to massage their earnings figures on paper so they'd qualify.
These were all grown adults who made these decisions of their own free will - just as I (and many others) chose NOT to do so.

look at those people on the anglo tapes,i,m ok, ill retire on a nice pension ,the taxpayer ,government will take care of me.

Again true.. what happened there was scandalous and it's a farce (but not surprising!) that nothing has been done about it, BUT.... who exactly do you think will "take care of" the debt owed if people are simply allowed walk away? That's right, the taxpayer!

Let's be very clear on this people.. any debts that are "written off" will simply be paid by someone else - they won't just disappear as some of you seem to think.

I genuinely can't believe that there are adults here trying to spin/justify the idea that it's OK for someone else to be stuck paying the debts taken on by others, and complaining that "the banks got away with it" (while true) does not make it right or acceptable. All it shows me is that there are far too many people in this failed country who want to live like irresponsible children all their lives - happy to take the deal when times are good, but crying about it later because they don't like the outcome and expecting someone else to sort it out (and pay) for them.

No wonder our government (regardless of what party is in power) can behave the way it does - they're only a more extreme example of a much deeper problem in Irish society.

cookie1977

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

True.. but on the other side of it, no-one dragged people into banks and FORCED them to sign up for ridiculous mortgages.
No-one FORCED a lot of these people to massage their earnings figures on paper so they'd qualify.
These were all grown adults who made these decisions of their own free will - just as I (and many others) chose NOT to do so.


Again true.. what happened there was scandalous and it's a farce (but not surprising!) that nothing has been done about it, BUT.... who exactly do you think will "take care of" the debt owed if people are simply allowed walk away? That's right, the taxpayer!

Let's be very clear on this people.. any debts that are "written off" will simply be paid by someone else - they won't just disappear as some of you seem to think.

I genuinely can't believe that there are adults here trying to spin/justify the idea that it's OK for someone else to be stuck paying the debts taken on by others, and complaining that "the banks got away with it" (while true) does not make it right or acceptable. All it shows me is that there are far too many people in this failed country who want to live like irresponsible children all their lives - happy to take the deal when times are good, but crying about it later because they don't like the outcome and expecting someone else to sort it out (and pay) for them.

No wonder our government (regardless of what party is in power) can behave the way it does - they're only a more extreme example of a much deeper problem in Irish society.

So banks should take no responsibility for any thing no? We should just have zero laws and regulation and put all the onus on personal responsibility yes? Wonder how we'd do as a society then...

_Kaiser_

cookie1977 wrote: »

So banks should take no responsibility for any thing no? We should just have zero laws and regulation and put all the onus on personal responsibility yes? Wonder how we'd do as a society then...

You're still beating the "but they got away with it so so should everyone else" drum eh? Why is it NOT ok for the banks then, but IS ok for everyone else?

Where did I say that absolving the banks of responsibility was acceptable? Of course they shouldn't have but that's what happens when you have a nation of people obsessed with property, keeping up with the neighbours, and more concerned with the goings-on in Eastenders and Manchester Utd than the affairs of the nation.

But it's not surprising really either - banks, governments, regulators etc are ultimately merely normal people with a different job so given the above mindsets it's not really surprising that things turned out as they did.

We need to get over this obsession with owning property. I don't know whether it's a legacy of the whole "800 years" or whatever, but we need to move to a model where long-term renting is a perfectly acceptable option and in fact the norm (as it is in many countries), and where if you can sustainably afford to buy a house or apartment, then by all means do so. Ultimately, no-one NEEDS to own a 3-bed semi-D .. it's only our broken, deeply flawed system, that makes renting so unattractive.

Writing off debts for adults who took them on of their own free will won't solve anything in the final analysis. If anything it'll only encourage more reckless behaviour as it validates the idea that you can actually live consequence-free (because if you think that the same people who are "forgiven" won't be back applying for mortgages - and getting them - in a few years, you will be dead wrong) .. except there ARE consequences - for those who didn't go mad in the "good times" and for our children who'll still be paying the bills long after we're dead and buried.

cookie1977

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You're still beating the "but they got away with it so so should everyone else" drum eh? Why is it NOT ok for the banks then, but IS ok for everyone else?

Where did I say that absolving the banks of responsibility was acceptable? Of course they shouldn't have but that's what happens when you have a nation of people obsessed with property, keeping up with the neighbours, and more concerned with the goings-on in Eastenders and Manchester Utd than the affairs of the nation.

But it's not surprising really either - banks, governments, regulators etc are ultimately merely normal people with a different job so given the above mindsets it's not really surprising that things turned out as they did.

We need to get over this obsession with owning property. I don't know whether it's a legacy of the whole "800 years" or whatever, but we need to move to a model where long-term renting is a perfectly acceptable option and in fact the norm (as it is in many countries), and where if you can sustainably afford to buy a house or apartment, then by all means do so. Ultimately, no-one NEEDS to own a 3-bed semi-D .. it's only our broken, deeply flawed system, that makes renting so unattractive.

Writing off debts for adults who took them on of their own free will won't solve anything in the final analysis. If anything it'll only encourage more reckless behaviour as it validates the idea that you can actually live consequence-free (because if you think that the same people who are "forgiven" won't be back applying for mortgages - and getting them - in a few years, you will be dead wrong) .. except there ARE consequences - for those who didn't go mad in the "good times" and for our children who'll still be paying the bills long after we're dead and buried.

I dont think anyone should get away with it. I dont see that loosing your home and entering bankruptcy is getting away with it. Do you? There is no need to pursue the outstanding debt (post repossession and sale) in it's entirety if people cannot afford it or if they end up suffering the rest of their lives. No where else in the developed world has this model you want. I want a function economy as well as a functioning society. Not some sort of penal work house model that some on here want to see.

If we had proper planning and building (solid walls for instance) of apt complexes with amenities for families then we might as a nation consider living in them. I dont believe for an instant that writing off "outstanding" debt following a repossession and possibly bankruptcy would in anyway encourage reckless behaviour. Do you really believe this? Honestly?

jay0109

cookie1977 wrote: »

I dont think anyone should get away with it. I dont see that loosing your home and entering bankruptcy is getting away with it. Do you? There is no need to pursue the outstanding debt (post repossession and sale) in it's entirety if people cannot afford it or if they end up suffering the rest of their lives. No where else in the developed world has this model you want. I want a function economy as well as a functioning society. Not some sort of penal work house model that some on here want to see.

If we had proper planning and building (solid walls for instance) of apt complexes with amenities for families then we might as a nation consider living in them. I dont believe for an instant that writing off "outstanding" debt following a repossession and possibly bankruptcy would in anyway encourage reckless behaviour. Do you really believe this? Honestly?

You won't have much of a functioning society if tens of thousands are allowed walk away from their debts and society has to pick up the tab....there is no magic money tree so society will have to make cut backs to cover for these losses i.e. less nurses, less care workers, less funding for kids with special needs or the elderly in care, more potholes etc etc

If you give on 1 side of the balance sheet, you have to debit on the other

cookie1977

jay0109 wrote: »

You won't have much of a functioning society if tens of thousands are allowed walk away from their debts and society has to pick up the tab....there is no magic money tree so society will have to make cut backs to cover for these losses i.e. less nurses, less care workers, less funding for kids with special needs or the elderly in care, more potholes etc etc

If you give on 1 side of the balance sheet, you have to debit on the other

Again, you consider repossession and bankruptcy as walking away from debt.

jay0109

cookie1977 wrote: »

Again, you consider repossession and bankruptcy as walking away from debt.

Whether I consider it to be like that or not is irrelevant.....you want a just society with I presume no cut backs to services for those most in need. And yet you also want debt write off in the billions.
The 2 don't don't fit together I'm afraid.

Debt write-off on repossessions would work if there was only a few hundred/low thousands per year. But we're talking industrial scale here

cookie1977

jay0109 wrote: »

Whether I consider it to be like that or not is irrelevant.....you want a just society with I presume no cut backs to services for those most in need. And yet you also want debt write off in the billions.
The 2 don't don't fit together I'm afraid.

Debt write-off on repossessions would work if there was only a few hundred/low thousands per year. But we're talking industrial scale here

give me an example of where else this happens in the world today, where we chase down people for every cent they owe whether they can afford it or not. I can give you only one, money lenders and even they'll let you off some of the debt you cant afford to pay back after knee capping you

jay0109

cookie1977 wrote: »

give me an example of where else this happens in the world today, where we chase down people for every cent they owe whether they can afford it or not. I can give you only one, money lenders and even they'll let you off some of the debt you cant afford to pay back after knee capping you

I can't give you an example.
But that was'nt my point which your deliberately avoiding....how can you marry your just society with mass debt write off.

Your not dealing with reality in your posts

_Kaiser_

cookie1977 wrote: »

Again, you consider repossession and bankruptcy as walking away from debt.

Because it's not a 1:1 transaction. Thanks to the market crash, there is an outstanding balance that STILL has to be paid and that's what your proposing be picked up by the taxpayer

cookie1977

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Because it's not a 1:1 transaction. Thanks to the market crash, there is an outstanding balance that STILL has to be paid and that's what your proposing be picked up by the taxpayer

You dont think there might be a cost to the tax payer for supporting these bankrupt, possibly homeless, unemployed people who are still being chased down for all the debt they owe?

I'll ask again do you really believe there's a large proportion of people in significant arrears living the life of reilly out there? You've got to stop reading the Daily Mail.