Left Ireland for Australia, left keys in door

cookie1977

D3PO wrote: »

Under MARP banks have to put realistic proposals forward, if they do not you can dispute the proposals. If the bank says lets go interest only for 5 years and you can afford interest only then that's a realistic proposal.

I also believe that there is certainly scope and or an argument for debt / equity swaps but I don't agree that in the scenario you mention that in say 20 years a sale should occur that there should be a 50 /50 split. If your forcing banks to take equity in a property say 50% then there should be an additional benefit to them as they take a loss on the money they funded for the mortgage for that time.

If say they took half the debt and 65% of the equity then maybe but I don't think that somebody should be able to dump half their equity now on a NE property for essentially the price they paid for it (or pretty close)


I accept your comment re potential further burdening of the tax payer for those that have to be repossessed, however that should be few and far between.

Most of these people have some level of income just reduced form where they were. That allows them to do a deal under MARP, or go bankrupt and have a sufficient income to rent privately and survive if not to a minimal standard until the process completes.

The problem is the banks still have final refusal and if you're a struggling mortgage holder trying to sort out your problems you will not feel that you have the time to appeal (firstly to the banks own internal process) wait for a response and then appeal again (to Financial Services Ombudsman). The initial appeal to the bank can take up to 40 business days and there is no details on how long the Financial Services Ombudsman has to get back to you. Essentially an eternity to a struggling mortgage holder.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/mortgage_arrears/mortgage_arrears_resolution_process.html

The banks appear to be preferentially going for up to 5yr interest only options. Since no independent analysis has been done on these accounts (the banks make these decisions based on info supplied then they notify the CB of what those on arrears have been placed on) we dont know if this option was the best for the bank and the mortgagee or just a holding/delaying pattern on the part of the bank (all the while with their fingers crossed). Remember huge numbers of MARP entrants have had to return for another assessment/deal (info on CB stats site).

After 20-30 years (arbitrary numbers here) lets be honest 2 things will happen. Inflation will have eaten into the debt and the property will more than likely increased in value so the bank will get a decent enough some back if the mortgagee has been paying the other half of the mortgage consistently so I dont see the need for 65% equity.

Again with no proper analysis of what those in arrears have left over we can only speculate on how they'd cope after repossession/bankruptcy.

Interest only arrangements and reduced payment arrangements (interest plus some capital) continue to account for the majority of all restructure types (approximately 59 per cent).

http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/ResidentialMortgageArrearsandRepossessionsStatisticsQ42012.aspx

skyfall2012

[QUOTE/]
They made an error in judgment and have to pay for it. We live in a capitalist society. Like I said before if people don't like it then they should move to a communist country and see how great it is.[/QUOTE]

Why are the people the ones paying???

Grolschevik

skyfall2012 wrote: »

[QUOTE/]

Why are the people the ones paying???

Who else is there to foot the bill?

D3PO

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Why are the people the ones paying???

Because we don't do non recourse loans in this country. You take a loan your responsible wholly for it. The banks unfortunately don't have to account for being responsible for loaning you the money.

I believe that non recourse loans should be the way forward so as to promote prudent lending always.

skyfall2012

D3PO wrote: »

Because we don't do non recourse loans in this country. You take a loan your responsible wholly for it. The banks unfortunately don't have to account for being responsible for loaning you the money.

I believe that non recourse loans should be the way forward so as to promote prudent lending always.

It seems everybody is happy enough with the banks getting bailed out of their mistake, which was not a mistake because they are trained financial experts. The developers get away with building, buildings that people can't live in. Bertie gets away with watching the banks and the builders and not making sure the regulators were doing their jobs and taking a slice of the pie for himself.

So the only people that have to learn and pay for their lesson, are the people who were working, often Mom and Dad while kids in creche to buy a home for their family which was priced exorbinately high (as renting private houses is not secure in this country like in Europe, and they probably didn't qualify for the social housing), rent was as expensive as paying a mortgage what choice did people have.

The banks, the government, the builders all knew what they were doing and did not care about the consequences as they knew the taxpayer would foot the bill in the end, Bertie made sure of it! I feel if the banks, the builder and the government getaway with it, why shouldn't the people who were only doing what people always did buy a home for their families. Jesus it is as bad as being ruled by the British, we are still been treated like second class citizens, used for what they can get out of us. The war of independance was a waste of time, we have gained nothing!

Rightwing

You are taking the fight to the banks/government and you will win.

Most people in this country are sheep, afraid of their own shadows.

Well done, don't think anymore of it.

jmayo

The Spider wrote: »

Grand, except no one knew any of that at the time and everyone was singing his praises ( I wasn't).

BULLSH** and you know it.
ahern's woes were already known.
Some people chose to ignore them because the good times that he presided over was good for them.
Who cared in 2002 that he predised over the joke of the HSE creation or that numbers in public sector had jumped, benchmarking had occurred with no appreciable increase in service levels.

The Spider wrote: »

So by your logic now that the government today is saying that we all have to pay into pensions we should ignore it?

There is a difference between paying into a pension which can be spread across various investment vehicles in various countries than buying an overpriced badly built property in the ar**hole of nowhere whose long term viability is dependent on cheap credit low taxes, tax writeoff schemes, inflated salaries, or an ever increasing number of emigrants.

On and here is the little thing, putting money into a pension is putting money aside that you already have, not paying out money you have to borrow off someone else and pay back.

The Spider wrote: »

Because after all it's financial advice from the government

Rightwing

Government owned AIB/EBS upping their interest rates, they are turning the screw. Punters in serious negative equity should show these amateurs how to play tough....walk away.

skyfall2012

jmayo wrote: »

There is a difference between paying into a pension which can be spread across various investment vehicles in various countries than buying an overpriced badly built property in the ar**hole of nowhere whose long term viability is dependent on cheap credit low taxes, tax writeoff schemes, inflated salaries, or an ever increasing number of emigrants.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Even Warren Buffet bought Bank Of Ireland shares during the boom, which proves if even someone like him didn't see this coming from outside the control tower aka Gov, bank, developer. How do you expect ordinary people with no financial expertise to see it coming.

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2009/03/buffets-lesson-from-ireland.html

jmayo

skyfall2012 wrote: »

It seems everybody is happy enough with the banks getting bailed out of their mistake, which was not a mistake because they are trained financial experts.

Except who are THE BANKS ?
Were the shareholders, i.e. the owners, of the banks bailed out ?

The ones in the banks who came out of this ok were the bank employees, especially those at the top who got to walk away from the mess they created with handsome payouts, nice pensions, or even promotions as in case of BOI CEO.

skyfall2012 wrote: »

The developers get away with building, buildings that people can't live in. Bertie gets away with watching the banks and the builders and not making sure the regulators were doing their jobs and taking a slice of the pie for himself.

The developers, once again especially the ones at the top, have gotten away with a lot and they should be hounded for every penny they owe and for the disasters they created.
Likewise the regulators, dept of finance and the government(s) of the time who have slung off into the night with handsome lump sums and sweet pensions.

skyfall2012 wrote: »

So the only people that have to learn and pay for their lesson, are the people who were working, often Mom and Dad while kids in creche to buy a home for their family which was priced exorbinately high (as renting private houses is not secure in this country like in Europe, and they probably didn't qualify for the social housing), rent was as expensive as paying a mortgage what choice did people have.

You are being a little economical with the truth and the facts.
A lot of the ones looking for bailouts and a lot of the ones in trouble aren't the poor FTBs or even trader uppers who just wanted the nice little family home.
A huge swath of the ones in trouble, and some of the most vocal proponents of bailouts, are the ones who way overborrowed, bought multiple properties, got into development themselves, remortgaged for other stuff like boats, cars, holidays, etc.


Like with the public sector argument about Garda or hospital staff pay, the sacred cows are immediately dragged out as an example of the total situation when they in fact are only a small proportion of the total.

skyfall2012 wrote: »

The banks, the government, the builders all knew what they were doing and did not care about the consequences as they knew the taxpayer would foot the bill in the end, Bertie made sure of it!

And the buyers should have known what they were doing as well.
There were enough ones out there pointing out the problems and it is often their own fault if they often chose to ignore those warnings.

skyfall2012 wrote: »

I feel if the banks, the builder and the government getaway with it, why shouldn't the people who were only doing what people always did buy a home for their families.

Boll**.
Most of the properties bought were not as just a home for their families.
They were bought as investments, either to be kept or traded in for another property in the future.
The number of people who bought their home for life or even to view to having it for 10-20 years was actually probably quiet small.

Oh and for your information a lot of the ones looking for bailouts and crying the poor mouth now are builders who borrowed huge amounts for properties based on the overinflated salaries they were drawing during the bubble, all the while they were blowing huge wads of cash all over the place.

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Jesus it is as bad as being ruled by the British, we are still been treated like second class citizens, used for what they can get out of us. The war of independance was a waste of time, we have gained nothing!

If anything it is time the Irish people grew up.
During the bubble a lot of Irish acted like adolescents let loose in the pub or formerly the sweet shop.
Now the same group are acting like spolit children who want Daddy or Mammy to go buy them new toys to replace the ones that have broken.

All I read from your and a lot of others posts is about deserving, rights, entlitlement and nothing about responsibility except that it is someone else who should take it.

Oh and the more I read your posts the harder I am finding it that you studied economics at third level.

jmayo

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Even Warren Buffet bought Bank Of Ireland shares during the boom, which proves if even someone like him didn't see this coming from outside the control tower aka Gov, bank, developer. How do you expect ordinary people with no financial expertise to see it coming.

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2009/03/buffets-lesson-from-ireland.html

Ehh did he buy Anglo shares ?
Did he buy Irish property ?

by the seaside

D3PO wrote: »

They made an error in judgment and have to pay for it. We live in a capitalist society. Like I said before if people don't like it then they should move to a communist country and see how great it is.

This exposes the weakness of your extreme binary view. Is there nothing between your (presumably Austrian economic school) definition of capitalism or living in a communist state? Can't you think of anything in between?

Perhaps I can dream up a version of a society with what I see as personal liberties and if you don't like it you can live in Saudi Arabia. That would be rather silly, wouldn't it?

Tone it down a bit. You're not going to get everyone underwater put through bankruptcy on an individual basis or through the other current mechanisms to manage insolvency. There needs to be a systemic solution to a systemic problem, but it doesn't have to be one that leaves those entering the solution in possession of the housing asset after the debt write off.

Start off with the investors - send them to the dogs. See what it looks like then. You want a complete file sale and 'woe to the conquered', and are overplaying a position that is founded on good sense, but it needs to be tempered with pragmatism and humanity, even if that means you don't get quite the house at quite the price you wanted. As a poster wisely said in this thread:

Tough luck if that isn't what you envisaged for you and your family. Lifes tough you don't always get what you deserve or think you deserve.

Zamboni

jmayo wrote: »

Except who are THE BANKS ?

From now on anyone who post "the banks" as some vague malicious entity is getting on my ignore list.

skyfall2012

If the creators of this crises are not punished, then the people shouldn't be. Why is no one going after the developers who built houses and they are destroyed by pyrite and people paid a fortune for these houses. What about those people who bought those apartments in Dublin whom are now not able to live in them because they are not safe.

Nobody is going after them because the whole damn lot of them including Bertie would be put in jail. So who is going to hunt them down? But they are hunting the mortgage holders down.

All this is criminal and they are getting away with it and you want these people who bought these houses and these houses are only fit to be knocked to pay.

Rightwing

skyfall2012 wrote: »

If the creators of this crises are not punished, then the people shouldn't be. Why is no one going after the developers who built houses and they are destroyed by pyrite and people paid a fortune for these houses. What about those people who bought those apartments in Dublin whom are now not able to live in them because they are not safe.

Nobody is going after them because the whole damn lot of them including Bertie would be put in jail. So who is going to hunt them down?

All this is criminal and they are getting away with it and everybody wants these people who bought these houses to pay.

Exactly, banks think they can bully people into submission. Well they can only do that if people want to be bullied.

cookie1977

jmayo wrote: »

A huge swath of the ones in trouble, and some of the most vocal proponents of bailouts, are the ones who way overborrowed, bought multiple properties, got into development themselves, remortgaged for other stuff like boats, cars, holidays, etc.


Like with the public sector argument about Garda or hospital staff pay, the sacred cows are immediately dragged out as an example of the total situation when they in fact are only a small proportion of the total.

Most of the properties bought were not as just a home for their families.
They were bought as investments, either to be kept or traded in for another property in the future.
The number of people who bought their home for life or even to view to having it for 10-20 years was actually probably quiet small.

Oh and for your information a lot of the ones looking for bailouts and crying the poor mouth now are builders who borrowed huge amounts for properties based on the overinflated salaries they were drawing during the bubble, all the while they were blowing huge wads of cash all over the place.

If you could provide any evidence for some of what you've said above I'd like to read it. I would add that based on CB stats some of your ideas dont seem to add up. The stats below are the latest released by the CB. There are 143000 PPR's in arrears as opposed to 37,000 BTL's. If as you say most in trouble are those that bought multiple properties surely more of these would be in arrears then PPR's. Because from I can see most of those in arrears are owners of single houses in which they reside.

http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/ResidentialMortgageArrearsandRepossessionsStatisticsQ42012.aspx

Zamboni

skyfall2012 wrote: »

If the creators of this crises are not punished, then the people shouldn't be. Why is no one going after the developers who built houses and they are destroyed by pyrite and people paid a fortune for these houses. What about those people who bought those apartments in Dublin whom are now not able to live in them because they are not safe.

Nobody is going after them because the whole damn lot of them including Bertie would be put in jail. So who is going to hunt them down? But they are hunting the mortgage holders down.

All this is criminal and they are getting away with it and you want these people who bought these houses and these houses are only fit to be knocked to pay.

You really have to individualise this.

If a bank employee broke contract law, banking regulations, etc during a a mortgage approval, then the borrower should make a complaint to the correct authority.
If a developer broke law or building regulation, then the appropriate affected person should make a complaint to the relevant authority.
If bank management (like Fitzy, Drumm et al) broke the law they should be investigated (as they are being) and prosecuted if necessary.
If a politician acted incorrectly, vote him out. (He was).
If you think a politician like Bertie broke a law, report him to the Gardai.

Stop with "de banks, de developers, de government" rhetoric.
They are organsiations full of people of varying culpability - complicit, innocent, incompetent.

by the seaside

Zamboni wrote: »

You really have to individualise this.

If a bank employee broke contract law, banking regulations, etc during a a mortgage approval, then the borrower should make a complaint to the correct authority.
If a developer broke law or building regulation, then the appropriate affected person should make a complaint to the relevant authority.
If bank management (like Fitzy, Drumm et al) broke the law they should be investigated (as they are being) and prosecuted if necessary.
If a politician acted incorrectly, vote him out. (He was).
If you think a politician like Bertie broke a law, report him to the Gardai.

Stop with "de banks, de developers, de government" rhetoric.
They are organsiations full of people of varying culpability - complicit, innocent, incompetent.

And what it the top echelons of society cannot be held to account because they themselves control the instruments of accountability?

valleyoftheunos

by the seaside wrote: »

And what it the top echelons of society cannot be held to account because they themselves control the instruments of accountability?

Quis custodiet ipsos costodes!?!?!

gaius c

cookie1977 wrote: »

If you could provide any evidence for some of what you've said above I'd like to read it. I would add that based on CB stats some of your ideas dont seem to add up. The stats below are the latest released by the CB. There are 143000 PPR's in arrears as opposed to 37,000 BTL's. If as you say most in trouble are those that bought multiple properties surely more of these would be in arrears then PPR's. Because from I can see most of those in arrears are owners of single houses in which they reside.

http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/ResidentialMortgageArrearsandRepossessionsStatisticsQ42012.aspx

FTB market never got above 25% of the mortgage market at it's highest so over 75% of the market was trade up's, re-mortgaging, BTL and equity release. We also know that 60% of the mortgage market in 2006 was BTL so that doesn't leave a lot for trader upper PPR's either.

Interesting figures but I wonder if there's some messing with classification going on. If somebody re-mortgages their PPR to buy apartments, does the loan get classified as PPR or BTL?

by the seaside

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Quis custodiet ipsos costodes!?!?!

Not sure, but from what we hear over this side of the Irish Sea, they probably reside inside a corporate hospitality tent at Galway Races.

D3PO

by the seaside wrote: »

And what it the top echelons of society cannot be held to account because they themselves control the instruments of accountability?

Everybody can be held to account and accountability for being in arrears begins with yourself.

I read things in this thread like prices were getting out of peoples reach so they had to buy bla bla bla its not their fault yada yada as if its a right to be able to own your own house.

Its not, house ownership is a privilege this entrenched view Irish people have about house ownership is illogical and is what got many into trouble.

You messed up now you pay the price sorry. That price is you lose your assets and you pay your debts, or a portion of them based on whatever deal you can do with your creditors. Its not ok to think you can keep your assets by getting a handout coz it wasn't all your mistake :rolleyes:

gaius c

Zamboni wrote: »

From now on anyone who post "the banks" as some vague malicious entity is getting on my ignore list.

But what about De Banks?

jmayo

cookie1977 wrote: »

If you could provide any evidence for some of what you've said above I'd like to read it. I would add that based on CB stats some of your ideas dont seem to add up. The stats below are the latest released by the CB. There are 143000 PPR's in arrears as opposed to 37,000 BTL's. If as you say most in trouble are those that bought multiple properties surely more of these would be in arrears then PPR's. Because from I can see most of those in arrears are owners of single houses in which they reside.

http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/ResidentialMortgageArrearsandRepossessionsStatisticsQ42012.aspx

There are a hell of a lot of people in trouble with their principle home mortgage (remember that nice elderly couple in Dalkey/Kiliney :rolleyes:), because they remortgaged or released equity to be used somewhere else.

Remember how the banks didn't care what you wanted the loans for ?
I remember advertising and pushes to get people to release the equity locked up in their homes ?
Shure wouldn't you be a fool not to and cash in.

Trust me a fair amount of the crud bought in the likes of Bulgaria, Cape Verde, etc was funded by remortgaging.
I remember looking at property in the likes of Bulgaria, Slovakia, etc and i could swear I was one of the few looking at mortgages in those countries.
All the rest of the people I ever met at any shows were going to fund them from Ireland.
It was leveraging to the max.

Also where did the deposits come from for all the BTLs ?

So statistics don't always tell the whole story.

by the seaside

jmayo wrote: »

There are a hell of a lot of people in trouble with their principle home mortgage (remember that nice elderly couple in Dalkey/Kiliney :rolleyes:), because they remortgaged or released equity to be used somewhere else.

Remember how the banks didn't care what you wanted the loans for ?
I remember advertising and pushes to get people to release the equity locked up in their homes ?
Shure wouldn't you be a fool not to and cash in.

Trust me a fair amount of the crud bought in the likes of Bulgaria, Cape Verde, etc was funded by remortgaging.
I remember looking at property in the likes of Bulgaria, Slovakia, etc and i could swear I was one of the few looking at mortgages in those countries.
All the rest of the people I ever met at any shows were going to fund them from Ireland.
It was leveraging to the max.

Also where did the deposits come from for all the BTLs ?

So statistics don't always tell the whole story.

It would be good to have stats on performance of mortgages according to when mortgaged property was purchased.

cookie1977

gaius c wrote: »

FTB market never got above 25% of the mortgage market at it's highest so over 75% of the market was trade up's, re-mortgaging, BTL and equity release. We also know that 60% of the mortgage market in 2006 was BTL so that doesn't leave a lot for trader upper PPR's either.

Interesting figures but I wonder if there's some messing with classification going on. If somebody re-mortgages their PPR to buy apartments, does the loan get classified as PPR or BTL?

Taking your figures at face value as I dont have any links for them, if 75% were not FTB's then they could also include people renovating too. The stats do not pan out though that the majority of those in arrears are BTL buyers which is what some have suggested.

If somebody remortgages their PPR to buy a BTL then one loan is a PPR and the other is BTL. There's only one mortgage per property.

jmayo wrote: »

There are a hell of a lot of people in trouble with their principle home mortgage (remember that nice elderly couple in Dalkey/Kiliney :rolleyes:), because they remortgaged or released equity to be used somewhere else.

Remember how the banks didn't care what you wanted the loans for ?
I remember advertising and pushes to get people to release the equity locked up in their homes ?
Shure wouldn't you be a fool not to and cash in.

Trust me a fair amount of the crud bought in the likes of Bulgaria, Cape Verde, etc was funded by remortgaging.
I remember looking at property in the likes of Bulgaria, Slovakia, etc and i could swear I was one of the few looking at mortgages in those countries.
All the rest of the people I ever met at any shows were going to fund them from Ireland.
It was leveraging to the max.

Also where did the deposits come from for all the BTLs ?

So statistics don't always tell the whole story.

Yes but I've yet to see your evidence of what you hypothesise. The deposits for BTL's may have come from PPR remortgaging but there would still then be two mortgages (one BTL and one PPR). Presumably those struggling would let the BTL fall into arrears first before their PPR yet the stats still show more PPR's in arrears then BTL's. As I asked if you could provide some links on what you've suggested I'd like to have a read.

jmayo

cookie1977 wrote: »

Yes but I've yet to see your evidence of what you hypothesise. The deposits for BTL's may have come from PPR remortgaging but there would still then be two mortgages (one BTL and one PPR). Presumably those struggling would let the BTL fall into arrears first before their PPR yet the stats still show more PPR's in arrears then BTL's. As I asked if you could provide some links on what you've suggested I'd like to have a read.

A lot of people I would presume would try and save the primary residence the home.
It would make for an interesting stat to see what number of people were on both BTL and PPR defaulting lists.

Likewise as "by the seaside" mentioned to have a breakdown on when the mortgages were drawn originally or had further drawdowns.

cookie1977

I presume data protection laws prevent a fuller analysis but I think there really does need to be an independent specialist group/organisation , set up to assess what is the best solution for individuals in arrears (whether that be interest only periods, debt for equity swaps, voluntary surrender, bankruptcy etc...) and that the recommendation that they may can be appealed once by any party (bank or mortgagee) but which no party can refuse if any appeal is rejected.

I dont believe the current model of the banks doing the deals and the banks always having right of refusal, is the best model for them or the country.

by the seaside

cookie1977 wrote: »

I presume data protection laws prevent a fuller analysis but I think there really does need to be an independent specialist group/organisation , set up to assess what is the best solution for individuals in arrears (whether that be interest only periods, debt for equity swaps, voluntary surrender, bankruptcy etc...) and that the recommendation that they may can be appealed once by any party (bank or mortgagee) but which no party can refuse if any appeal is rejected.

I dont believe the current model of the banks doing the deals and the banks always having right of refusal, is the best model for them or the country.

I would be surprised if data protection laws would prevent the analysis of data once data items that can potentially identify individuals have been removed.

cookie1977

by the seaside wrote: »

I would be surprised if data protection laws would prevent the analysis of data once data items that can potentially identify individuals have been removed.

no they wouldn't but it's the second part that can be difficult to do. Again if an independent body assessed MARP arrangements rather than the banks the data would probably be easier to extract and it might give us a clearer picture of those in arrears and why. There's a huge amount of valuable data in the standard financial statement that would help us plan for the future and also remove so much speculation about those in arrears