House repossession rates are far too low

Balmed Out

why every time someone mentions repossession do we hear such complete and utter rubbish.
There is a large portion of the population who do not own a house but guess what, their not homeless!!!!!!
They do this thing called renting.

The most important thing is the taxpayers is out of pocket as little as possible, that means certain properties have to be repossessed but there are others where some sort of deal has to be done IF the gains of repossessing and selling the property is less then the cost of some sort of debt forgiveness / restructuring.

Madam_X

Boombastic wrote: »

So only townies who live in estates? what if I borrowed the same amount, but built a six bedroom house on a site given to me and did all the labour myself? Why should I not be entitled to a write off aswell?

I didn't say it applies only to the example I gave. I just gave one example. And I didn't say anything about a write-off.

Bullseye1

Three Seasons wrote: »

If they want to keep their house then they should not break their contract that they signed.

Families which could afford houses if they weren't overpriced and the market was more liquid are missing out on being able to have a "roof over their heads" as a result of a clogged up housing market.

Ah yes.

JRant

Madam_X wrote: »

I didn't say it applies only the example I gave. I just gave one example. And I didn't say anything about a write-off.

I think a lot of people automatically think that restructuring a loan is akin to a write-down unfortunately.

Grayson

To be fair to to OP, he's right. By changing the system so people can go a while without repaying or allowing them to renegotiate their mortgages, we are manipulating the housing market. The system is doing its best to keep the prices high. If more houses went on the market, the overall price would drop putting more people into negative equity. It would also lower the balance that's banks currently have because all the real estate that's locked up in mortgages they own would be worth less.

But this means we're doing our best to keep prices at bubble levels. And those levels were artificially high.

That means that it's locking out other buyers from the market. Which causes it to stagnate.

the government should allow the worst of these mortgage holders to be foreclosed on. But at the same time, they need to create more social housing. This means that people won't go homeless, and the prices will drop. Everyone else will be stuck paging a mortgage for a property that has lost more value.
But that's fair because technically all normal home-owners bought as somewhere to live. If they bought it with the idea of selling it for more, they were investing, and the government shouldn't be helping them.

AlekSmart

clairefontaine wrote: »

Contracts get renegotiated all the time, or nullified.

It may be an idea to revise the mortgage contract altogether.

It may also be an idea to drop some of the frivolous subjects in school and start consumer economics from third class onwards.

Irish people were not used to having money. It was new to them. It was like handing a 19 year old a credit card with a 20k limit on it. There is little fiscal education in the curriculum. They were bad consumers and therefore inflated prices left right and center. I would agree with this portion of taking responsibility. But the banks committed fraud against a naive population.

A good point on the renegotiation of contracts.

I would suggest that those committed enough to the process will have a degree of success in this.
I would imagine that "Renegotiation" will rapidly become a growth sector for the Legal profession and that's not a bad way to ensure future borrowers open their eyes about how the real world works.

I do however,disagree about this view that "The Banks" defrauded a naive populace.

Remember we are talking 21st Century Ireland here in the main,and to infer that those born in the 1970's and 80's were a lumpen mass of educationally disadvantaged dullards is,I fear,somewhat wide of the mark.

I suggest that the explanation is somewhat simpler,and has less to do with naivety and more to do with greed,both individual and corporate.

Bullseye1

We are well below bubble levels. People talk about the banks being the property of the tax payer and there shouldn't be a write down of debt, yet I see alot of the same people calling for repossessions which effectively reduces the value of the banks anyway.

Boombastic

JRant wrote: »

I think a lot of people automatically think that restructuring a loan is akin to a write-down unfortunately.

So for example would it be extending a 25/30 year mortgage to a fifty year mortgage? If the person took out the mortgage when they were 30, they'd be 80 again it was paid off. What if the person never gets job at the same wages again?

A person would need to factor in the rise in the mortgage in relation to their wages. Then you have a situation where it may be too expensive for people to take the higher paid job, kind of like the trap of costing more to go to work than stay on the dole. The rise in their mortgage payment would cancel out the increase in wages.


ETA: The only people that wouldn't benefit would be those that saved and planned accordingly.


The whole of the EU had easy access to the same credit, not just the Irish, yet we seemed to have went mad

JRant

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Ah yes.

There is a valid point being made though regarding the low repossesion rates and its somewhat unfair to infer anyone with this opinion as a scavanger. Some people just want to be able to afford their own homes. As it stands now anyone looking to buy now has to contend with;
difficulty getting approval due to the banks reluctance to lend
Higher interest rates to cover the bad debt already in the system
Unrealistic house prices, with the market price still being rigged.

Now i'm in no way advocating wholesale repossessions as it would be terrible for society as a whole but in some cases there is just no other option.

KyussBishop

Those going on about personal responsibility, never seem to pay any attention to the responsibility shared by others, and their requirement to share the burden; things such as:
- Banks deliberately and fraudulently inflating property prices
- Banks lending recklessly
- Both of the above causing homeowners to go into greater debt, in order to buy houses
- Lack of adequate government regulation, in preventing/counteracting the above
- The economic crisis caused by banks and the government, putting people out of jobs, and making them unable to meet mortgage payments
- Massive incompetence on behalf of government and the EU, in failing to put in place proper recovery policies (which would have resolved much of this issue, by providing jobs that allow people to pay their mortgages)

Massive shared fault there, with barely any responsibility being put onto parties in the banks (barely anyone held accountable, or in jail for fraud), and people are blind to the need for banks as well as government, to share the cost of this, not to lump it all onto homeowners.

The grand majority of these indebted homeowners had perfectly sustainable mortgages before the crisis, and they have been screwed by circumstances, that the banks created, and which government negligently failed to prevent or resolve; kicking these homeowners out onto the street, and wiping away everything they've already put into the homes (years of their lives working, to earn the money to meet mortgage payments), would be a pretty callous and needless act, which would benefit the banks (and many of the investors) that caused and contributed to the crisis, at a massive social cost.

Boombastic

KyussBishop wrote: »

Those going on about personal responsibility, never seem to pay any attention to the responsibility shared by others, and their requirement to share the burden; things such as:
- Banks deliberately and fraudulently inflating property prices
- Banks lending recklessly
- Both of the above causing homeowners to go into greater debt, in order to buy houses
- Lack of adequate government regulation, in preventing/counteracting the above
- The economic crisis caused by banks and the government, putting people out of jobs, and making them unable to meet mortgage payments
- Massive incompetence on behalf of government and the EU, in failing to put in place proper recovery policies (which would have resolved much of this issue, by providing jobs that allow people to pay their mortgages)

Massive shared fault there, with barely any responsibility being put onto parties in the banks (barely anyone held accountable, or in jail for fraud), and people are blind to the need for banks as well as government, to share the cost of this, not to lump it all onto homeowners.

The grand majority of these indebted homeowners had perfectly sustainable mortgages before the crisis, and they have been screwed by circumstances, that the banks created, and which government negligently failed to prevent or resolve; kicking these homeowners out onto the street, and wiping away everything they've already put into the homes (years of their lives working, to earn the money to meet mortgage payments), would be a pretty callous and needless act, which would benefit the banks (and many of the investors) that caused and contributed to the crisis, at a massive social cost.

Did they frog march you to the bank at gunpoint to sign on the dotted line?

Bullseye1

JRant wrote: »

There is a valid point being made though regarding the low repossesion rates and its somewhat unfair to infer anyone with this opinion as a scavanger. Some people just want to be able to afford their own homes. As it stands now anyone looking to buy now has to contend with;
difficulty getting approval due to the banks reluctance to lend
Higher interest rates to cover the bad debt already in the system
Unrealistic house prices, with the market price still being rigged.

Now i'm in no way advocating wholesale repossessions as it would be terrible for society as a whole but in some cases there is just no other option.

There is a hell of alot of posters on here who want people's property to devalue more just so they can afford to buy. What does that say?

Grayson

Bullseye1 wrote: »

We are well below bubble levels. People talk about the banks being the property of the tax payer and there shouldn't be a write down of debt, yet I see alot of the same people calling for repossessions which effectively reduces the value of the banks anyway.

We're well below the prices at the end of the bubble.

In 96 I had a landlord evict me. Well, not quite evict. He was selling the house. He said sorry but as he put it "Lads, I bought this house for 35k, It's now worth 40k. This can't last. I'd be stupid not to sell now and get out whilst the going is good". That house was well over 300k at the height of the boom. I've just checked and there's two houses in that estate and bone is 250 and one is 350.
That's well above the 40k it was 15 years ago. You're talking about a 600-800% rise. It would have been close to 1000% at the peak of the boom.

So yes, property has dropped. But It's still highly inflated.

Bullseye1

Boombastic wrote: »

Did they frog march you to the bank at gunpoint to sign on the dotted line?

The point still stands that the banks are largely responsible for inflating the market along with buyers/sellers and auctioneers. Collective responsbility is needed. It's not just the general population that needs to learn for this disaster. So too do the banks.

AlekSmart

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair to to OP, he's right. By changing the system so people can go a while without repaying or allowing them to renegotiate their mortgages, we are manipulating the housing market. The system is doing its best to keep the prices high. If more houses went on the market, the overall price would drop putting more people into negative equity. It would also lower the balance that's banks currently have because all the real estate that's locked up in mortgages they own would be worth less.

But this means we're doing our best to keep prices at bubble levels. And those levels were artificially high.

That means that it's locking out other buyers from the market. Which causes it to stagnate.

the government should not be allowed the worst of these mortgage holders to be foreclosed on. But at the same time, they need to create more social housing. This means that people won't go homeless, and the prices will drop. Everyone else will be stuck paging a mortgage for a property that has lost more value.
But that's fair because technically all normal home-owners bought as somewhere to live. If they bought it with the idea of selling it for more, they were investing, and the government shouldn't be helping them.

More and more threads,thankfully,are starting to feature the penny dropping in relation to the ownership of residedential property.

As Grayson points out,the entire Governmental policy thrust remains focused upon kick-starting or otherwise mollycoddling the Property Market.

This country does not have the economic generation capabilities to sustain mass ownership of resedential property.

The notion that purchasing a house,as was/is apparently,one's constitutional entitlement then allows the purchaser to live virtually cost-free for the remainder of their lives has surely now been put to bed ?

The reality is,that in addition to the ongoing costs surrounding the upkeep of the property,the owner is also liable for the associated Social and Infrastructural charges on an ongoing basis.

What we are witnessing now is merely a rebalancing of the scales which had been totally and falsely tilted in the race to make the Gael a race of property owners.

Creating the Social Housing Grayson writes of,entails many hundreds of thousands of Irish people becoming once again familiar with paying Rent :eek:....and worse still...to a Local Authority !

Sadly,our administrators never bothered to use the collapse to delve a little deeper into other more sustainable avenues to facilitate long-term rental and the associated benefits which supporting these would bring.

Nope,our main goal is to get them oul Starter-Homes selling once more.....:o

KyussBishop

Boombastic wrote: »

Did they frog march you to the bank at gunpoint to sign on the dotted line?

I don't have a mortgage. Does a contract signed with the banks, morally validate the shafting they gave homeowners, by (often through fraudulent means) inflating a property bubble, and recklessly loading people with highly risky debt? Does it validate them continuing to screw people over even more, without having to in any way pay for the consequences of their previous immoral, reckless, and fraudulent actions?

You want to hold one party, the homeowner, strictly to the letter of their contract, while the banks break not just the spirit of, but the letter of the law as well; blind to both the illegality, and most especially to morals.

Grayson

KyussBishop wrote: »

Those going on about personal responsibility, never seem to pay any attention to the responsibility shared by others, and their requirement to share the burden; things such as:
- Banks deliberately and fraudulently inflating property prices
- Banks lending recklessly
- Both of the above causing homeowners to go into greater debt, in order to buy houses
- Lack of adequate government regulation, in preventing/counteracting the above
- The economic crisis caused by banks and the government, putting people out of jobs, and making them unable to meet mortgage payments
- Massive incompetence on behalf of government and the EU, in failing to put in place proper recovery policies (which would have resolved much of this issue, by providing jobs that allow people to pay their mortgages)

Massive shared fault there, with barely any responsibility being put onto parties in the banks (barely anyone held accountable, or in jail for fraud), and people are blind to the need for banks as well as government, to share the cost of this, not to lump it all onto homeowners.

The grand majority of these indebted homeowners had perfectly sustainable mortgages before the crisis, and they have been screwed by circumstances, that the banks created, and which government negligently failed to prevent or resolve; kicking these homeowners out onto the street, and wiping away everything they've already put into the homes (years of their lives working, to earn the money to meet mortgage payments), would be a pretty callous and needless act, which would benefit the banks (and many of the investors) that caused and contributed to the crisis, at a massive social cost.

I kinda agree with shared responsibility.

Say I live in a country where there's lax gun laws and this is because the gun industry is in bed with the government. It lobbies the government and spends loads on election campaigns. Because of this it's easy to get a gun.
Now suppose I go out and get a gun. And I shoot someone. Am I any less responsible for my actions? Did anyone (scuse the pun) put a gun to my head and make me kill someone?
No. I bear full responsibility for my actions. And it's wrong for me to say it's someone else's fault.
Yes, the government shares responsibility. As do the gun manufacturers and the guy who sold it to me. And they should pay for their actions.
But that doesn't lessen my responsibility or my punishment.

Sure the government created an environment where this kind of spending could happen.But no-one made anyone take out a huge mortgage for a property that really wasn't worth it.

Three Seasons

KyussBishop wrote: »

Those going on about personal responsibility, never seem to pay any attention to the responsibility shared by others, and their requirement to share the burden; things such as:
- Banks deliberately and fraudulently inflating property prices
- Banks lending recklessly
- Both of the above causing homeowners to go into greater debt, in order to buy houses
- Lack of adequate government regulation, in preventing/counteracting the above
- The economic crisis caused by banks and the government, putting people out of jobs, and making them unable to meet mortgage payments
- Massive incompetence on behalf of government and the EU, in failing to put in place proper recovery policies (which would have resolved much of this issue, by providing jobs that allow people to pay their mortgages)

Massive shared fault there, with barely any responsibility being put onto parties in the banks (barely anyone held accountable, or in jail for fraud), and people are blind to the need for banks as well as government, to share the cost of this, not to lump it all onto homeowners.

The grand majority of these indebted homeowners had perfectly sustainable mortgages before the crisis, and they have been screwed by circumstances, that the banks created, and which government negligently failed to prevent or resolve; kicking these homeowners out onto the street, and wiping away everything they've already put into the homes (years of their lives working, to earn the money to meet mortgage payments), would be a pretty callous and needless act, which would benefit the banks (and many of the investors) that caused and contributed to the crisis, at a massive social cost.

No one was forced to sign the contract. If you behave like a lemming you suffer the consequences. Welcome to the real world. I don't want to see people suffering any more than the next person, but seriously, all that waffle above doesn't negate the fact people signed a contract to pay a series of payments whereby the house will be repossessed in the event of default.

What part of that agreement do you have a problem with? People's lemming like behaviour as well as cheap credit inflated the market. It is the banks responsibility to maximise profit for it's shareholders, they have freedom to set their interest rates how they wish within constraints. The lemmings inflated the market.

AlekSmart

Bullseye1 wrote: »

There is a hell of alot of posters on here who want people's property to devalue more just so they can afford to buy. What does that say?

There are also some posters who want to see the current uncertainty ended.

I neither a seller nor a buyer want to be,but I sure as hell recognize that the entire country is caught like a rabbit in the glare of the Property Sectors headlights.

The resultant paralysis is directly effecting the ability of thousands to simply get on with the non-property owning aspects of their lives.

What does that say ?

JRant

Bullseye1 wrote: »

There is a hell of alot of posters on here who want people's property to devalue more just so they can afford to buy. What does that say?

That they want to be able to afford their own home maybe?
I'd be very weary of going down the route of blaming prospective buyers on the repossessions of current homeowners. It could led to awful relations between any new owners and existing neighbours. There's enough people to blame for the current situation without appropriating blame to people who have had no hand in it.

Bullseye1

What it's saying is that no matter what Noonan says we will have the biggest right down of debt ever. It's going to be bloodshed and I can see one of the major banks collapsing in the not too distant future.

cournioni

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

As a potential first time buyer that's not in negative equity I approve this message.

I hate this term. Houses should be homes, not investments.

KyussBishop

Grayson wrote: »

I kinda agree with shared responsibility.

Say I live in a country where there's lax gun laws and this is because the gun industry is in bed with the government. It lobbies the government and spends loads on election campaigns. Because of this it's easy to get a gun.
Now suppose I go out and get a gun. And I shoot someone. Am I any less responsible for my actions? Did anyone (scuse the pun) put a gun to my head and make me kill someone?
No. I bear full responsibility for my actions. And it's wrong for me to say it's someone else's fault.
Yes, the government shares responsibility. As do the gun manufacturers and the guy who sold it to me. And they should pay for their actions.
But that doesn't lessen my responsibility or my punishment.

Sure the government created an environment where this kind of spending could happen.But no-one made anyone take out a huge mortgage for a property that really wasn't worth it.

Is a homeowner getting a mortgage, the moral equivalent to someone buying a gun and killing someone? What a facially ridiculous analogy.

The banks and the government are responsible not just for the size of homeowners debts, by encouraging the property bubble, they are responsible for their inability to pay those debts, because the banks and government caused the economic crisis, that has put people out of jobs, and made them unable to meet payments (and are also, along with the EU, responsible for failing to put in place recovery policies, that would give them jobs to meet those repayments once again).

Were the homeowners supposed to be prescient, and see the crisis coming; the worst crisis in 3/4 of a century? (which practically all economists, bar a small minority, did not see coming?)


If I am responsible for inflating the price of an asset, and destabilizing the economy through issuing risky loans based on those inflated assets, is that all ok and the fault of the person I'm giving the loans to, all because they 'signed the contract'? Bullshít.

AlekSmart

Bullseye1 wrote: »

What it's saying is that no matter what Noonan says we will have the biggest right down of debt ever. It's going to be bloodshed and I can see one of the major banks collapsing in the not too distant future.

I would tend to agree that some of the fallout is going to impact upon one or more of the Financial Instituitions.

That,in itself,might be no bad thing,as it then allows for the ailing institution to be accquired in the normal commercial manner,rather than the highly artifical State Supported situation up to this.

However,in the clamour to call for the Bankers heads,we should also realize that these same dreadful institutions employ thousands of ordinary people also......who just pay their way too....what attitude do we adopt to those "Bankers".....?

Bullseye1

"Bankers" are not the tellers at the counter they are the directors who implement policy.

Three Seasons

KyussBishop wrote: »

Is a homeowner getting a mortgage, the moral equivalent to someone buying a gun and killing someone? What a facially ridiculous analogy.

The banks and the government are responsible not just for the size of homeowners debts, by encouraging the property bubble, they are responsible for their inability to pay those debts, because the banks and government caused the economic crisis, that has put people out of jobs, and made them unable to meet payments (and are also, along with the EU, responsible for failing to put in place recovery policies, that would give them jobs to meet those repayments once again).

Were the homeowners supposed to be prescient, and see the crisis coming; the worst crisis in 3/4 of a century? (which practically all economists, bar a small minority, did not see coming?)


If I am responsible for inflating the price of an asset, and destabilizing the economy through issuing risky loans based on those inflated assets, is that all ok and the fault of the person I'm giving the loans to, all because they 'signed the contract'? Bullshít.

No it isn't bullsh1t. No one forced anyone to sign the contract. Where in the contract did it ever say "this agreement becomes null and void if the property bubble crashes or you lose your job". It is absolutely ridiculous to think the contract becomes void because a recession hit. If that's what you want then request that to be out in the contract and quit being a mindless lemming.

Hopefully people will learn the consequences from their actions if any good can come from this mess.

If I had a contract to pay you back the 500k you lent me would you write it off because I lost my job? It's not my fault, I can't predict the future.

KyussBishop

Three Seasons wrote: »

No one was forced to sign the contract. If you behave like a lemming you suffer the consequences. Welcome to the real world. I don't want to see people suffering any more than the next person, but seriously, all that waffle above doesn't negate the fact people signed a contract to pay a series of payments whereby the house will be repossessed in the event of default.

What part of that agreement do you have a problem with? People's lemming like behaviour as well as cheap credit inflated the market. It is the banks responsibility to maximise profit for it's shareholders, they have freedom to set their interest rates how they wish within constraints. The lemmings inflated the market.

Ah I see, you say the banks share no responsibility whatsoever. Nevermind that many banks engaged in fraud and breached regulations to make many of these loans, it is the fault of all the 'lemmings', i.e. homeowners i.e. society, for taking out those loans.

That's really weak blame-shifting; that's like putting the entire blame for the economic crisis onto society as a whole, "shure we all went mad", and totally absolving the banks of any responsibility. Nonsense.

Bullseye1

cournioni wrote: »

I hate this term. Houses should be homes, not investments.

I think to most home owners it is their home. To the banks it's an investment.

KyussBishop

Three Seasons wrote: »

Hopefully people will learn the consequences from their actions if any good can come from this mess.

Yes just not the banks, right? Their actions have no consequence, it's only the 'lemmings' fault.

AlekSmart

cournioni wrote: »

I hate this term. Houses should be homes, not investments.

A house is bricks,mortar and money.

An unoccupied house is just a walled and roofed space.

At some point it became de rigour to describe new empty houses as being homes,without a single human being ever having lived in them.

It could be argued that this subtle descriptive shift,in marketing terms,marked the beginning of the rapid slide into the fiscal anarchy we enjoy today.

We managed to blur the distinction between Bricks n Mortar and Blood n Guts,with unsurprising results.

Three Seasons

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes just not the banks, right? Their actions have no consequence, it's only the 'lemmings' fault.

Did I ever say the bank didn't make mistakes?

Nevertheless you have no one else to blame but yourself if you sign a contract to pay back 500k and can't afford it. You took a gamble a lost. Deal with the consequences like an adult.

Bullseye1

Three Seasons wrote: »

Did I ever say the bank didn't make mistakes?

Nevertheless you have no one else to blame but yourself if you sign a contract to pay back 500k and can't afford it. You took a gamble a lost. Deal with the consequences like an adult.

Should they also take a hit?

KyussBishop

Three Seasons wrote: »

Did I ever say the bank didn't make mistakes?

Nevertheless you have no one else to blame but yourself if you sign a contract to pay back 500k and can't afford it. You took a gamble a lost. Deal with the consequences like an adult.

You've all but absolved them of their mistakes, such as stuff like:

Three Seasons wrote:

It is the banks responsibility to maximise profit for it's shareholders, they have freedom to set their interest rates how they wish within constraints. The lemmings inflated the market.

If you agree they have made mistakes, and that they are responsible for those mistakes, then putting the cost of their mistakes entirely onto homeowners, is an unconscionable act.

If the banks made mistakes and are responsible for them, they have to bear the cost of those mistakes, not lump it entirely onto the indebted homeowners, whose predicament the banks are largely responsible for creating.

Three Seasons

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Should they also take a hit?

Their losses shouldn't be socialised to the tax payer if that's what your getting at.

But that's not really relevant to the independent contract you have with the bank.

JRant

Boombastic wrote: »

So for example would it be extending a 25/30 year mortgage to a fifty year mortgage? If the person took out the mortgage when they were 30, they'd be 80 again it was paid off. What if the person never gets job at the same wages again?

A person would need to factor in the rise in the mortgage in relation to their wages. Then you have a situation where it may be too expensive for people to take the higher paid job, kind of like the trap of costing more to go to work than stay on the dole. The rise in their mortgage payment would cancel out the increase in wages.


ETA: The only people that wouldn't benefit would be those that saved and planned accordingly.


The whole of the EU had easy access to the same credit, not just the Irish, yet we seemed to have went mad

My honest answer is I just don't know.

Your right though, only the gamblers seem to be benefiting at the moment.

I don't accept "we" went mad at all. Lots of people I know saw there was no value in the market and rented instead. Now their in early 30's looking to plant roots, so to speak, but are effectively froozen out of the current market.

Bullseye1

Hopefully those who absolve the banks of all responsibility never have the pleasure of having a mortgage. I'd hate to see them become a lemming.

AlekSmart

Bullseye1 wrote: »

"Bankers" are not the tellers at the counter they are the directors who implement policy.

Policies which were substantially altered in a headlong rush by the banking sector to satisfy an insatiable demand for property related funding.

From an era,(my own) when securing a mortgage entailed a significant amount of financial committment well in advance of application,to a situation whereby anybody with a pulse was deemed creditworthy was a remarkable short space of time.

The overiding driver was Demand....the sheer scale of demand,pent-up or otherwise manipulated caught much of the Banking Sector totally off guard.

However the flames had been well and truly stoked by Margaret Thatcher in the UK,with plenty of accounts about the nirvana which Property Ownership represented,so what was good for the Brits was surely good for us ?

Bullseye1

Three Seasons wrote: »

Their losses shouldn't be socialised to the tax payer if that's what your getting at.

But that's not really relevant to the independent contract you have with the bank.

Their loses have already been socialised to the tax payer or have you forgotten about that 60 billion. They should never have been privatised. You wouldn't even be defending them only FF privatised those pirates.

These are the same bankers who encouraged people to invest in off shore accounts and defraud revenue.

Mongfinder General

Sure why not just repossess all the housing stock? Interest Rates of 8 or 9% should do it. Then we we'll have state owned banks with worthless state owned houses on state owned balance sheets. Fcuk it, we can have socialist republic while we're at it.

Three Seasons

KyussBishop wrote: »

You've all but absolved them of their mistakes, such as stuff like:

If you agree they have made mistakes, and that they are responsible for those mistakes, then putting the cost of their mistakes entirely onto homeowners, is an unconscionable act.

If the banks made mistakes and are responsible for them, they have to bear the cost of those mistakes, not lump it entirely onto the indebted homeowners, whose predicament the banks are largely responsible for creating.

They should be allowed to fail as a result of their mistakes.

Contracts already signed remain valid regardless of bad business decisions they made.

Imagine you are the owner of a business and you are owed 100k by your debtors. Now imagine you make a bad business decision and invest in an ineffective marketing strategy resulting in losses.

Do you think this gives the debtors the right to say, sorry, not going to pay you back because you made mistakes. Those mistakes are irrelevant to the contract between you and your debtors. They have to pay you your money regardless.

Dwork

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Sure why not just repossess all the housing stock? Interest Rates of 8 or 9% should do it. Then we we'll have state owned banks with worthless state owned houses on state owned balance sheets. Fcuk it, we can have socialist republic while we're at it.

Anyone remember 17%??. I do. Mother of God. It would be carnage now.

Smidge

Three Seasons wrote: »

No one here wants people to be homeless. I'd like to see the government set up emergency shelters as a fail safe against families of repossessed homes becoming homeless.

But there needs to be rules by which we operate our society and economy. People can't be allowed to live in their house indefinitely without paying their mortgage. What's the point of giving the deeds as collateral in the first place if otherwise?

Then without a form if collateral the mortgage market dies and sh1t hits the fan and the potential for many more repossessions could crystallise.

When you sign a contract to pay a series of mortgage payments with the caveat that the house can be reposed in the event of default you can't complain when your house is repossessed upon default. If contracts mean nothing our society is fukced.

If you don't agree to the terms and conditions don't sign the fukcing contract.

The risk of losing your job at a future date is your own risk. Take that into account before deciding to sign the contract. Maybe more people would actually save up a reserve fund before signing the contract and not put themselves in a situation where they can barely cover their bills from the outset.

And do you know what would happen if people saved up a reserve fund before signing the contract. House prices would drop and become more affordable. Personal responsibility needs to be encouraged as it works out better for all long term.

That has to be the single most sensible thing I have ever read on boards.
And the fact that you have thought of where to put these people afterwards is a relief.

I think a ghetto would be a fabulous idea, then someone else can come in and buy the house for a half of the cost that the market put on the house and have a great laugh at the big thicks who maybe worked in the same factory job with their partner for 20 odd years.
Imagine...FACTORY workers lived in your new home, better get out the bleach quick smart.

Serves them right I say, sticking in a factory job and supporting their family, until through no fault of their own, the factory shuts up shop and off to China or elsewhere with them for cheaper labour. Damn cheek of the unskilled hard worker imo.

Grayson

KyussBishop wrote: »

Is a homeowner getting a mortgage, the moral equivalent to someone buying a gun and killing someone? What a facially ridiculous analogy.

The banks and the government are responsible not just for the size of homeowners debts, by encouraging the property bubble, they are responsible for their inability to pay those debts, because the banks and government caused the economic crisis, that has put people out of jobs, and made them unable to meet payments (and are also, along with the EU, responsible for failing to put in place recovery policies, that would give them jobs to meet those repayments once again).

Were the homeowners supposed to be prescient, and see the crisis coming; the worst crisis in 3/4 of a century? (which practically all economists, bar a small minority, did not see coming?)


If I am responsible for inflating the price of an asset, and destabilizing the economy through issuing risky loans based on those inflated assets, is that all ok and the fault of the person I'm giving the loans to, all because they 'signed the contract'? Bullshít.

Did I ever say that killing someone was the same as getting a mortgage? No, I didn't. I said that even if the government creates a situation where I can get a gun, I'm still the person who pulls the trigger. I am responsible for my actions.
If I get a mortgage, I'm the person responsible. More than that, I signed a document that admits I'm the person responsible.

And if I buy something, I don't expect it to retain it's price forever. Everything, electronics, cars, housed, precious stones, even gold, increases and loses value.

Sure, the government has some responsibility. And so do developers. And don't get me started on the leeches that are estate agents. And I believe that the people in power should be held accountable for their actions. But that doesn't lessen the responsibility of those that took out a mortgage. It's not like there's a fixed amount of responsibility. It's not like my responsibility for siging on a dotted line is lessened because someone else did something stupid as well.

If someone loses their home because they can't make payments, that's what should happen. I don't believe people should go homeless. The government has a separate duty to assist those in need of housing. They should provide social housing. But the government, and me as a tax payer, does not have a responsibility to help someone stay in an over priced box, or a responsibility to stop them from going bankrupt.

Mongfinder General

Dwork wrote: »

Anyone remember 17%??. I do. Mother of God. It would be carnage now.

and 20% inflation in the early 80s. Absolute basket case. The difference back then was that sums borrowed were 3 times your salary. Not so 5 years ago.

Bullseye1

Yes the banks should have been allowed fail. But they weren't by our incompetent government. Facilities exist for businesses to absolve themselves of debt through administration and liquidation. It's only a matter of time before another bank goes to the wall. More likely to be AIB.

Three Seasons wrote: »

They should be allowed to fail as a result of their mistakes.

Contracts already signed remain valid regardless of bad business decisions they made.

Imagine you are the owner of a business and you are owed 100k by your debtors. Now imagine you make a bad business decision and invest in an ineffective marketing strategy resulting in losses.

Do you think this gives the debtors the right to say, sorry, not going to pay you back because you made mistakes. Those mistakes are irrelevant to the contract between you and your debtors. They have to pay you your money regardless.

Bullseye1

Maybe we could put them on an island and make them crush rocks to work off their debt.:pac:

Smidge wrote: »

That has to be the single most sensible thing I have ever read on boards.
And the fact that you have thought of where to put these people afterwards is a relief.

I think a ghetto would be a fabulous idea, then someone else can come in and buy the house for a half of the cost that the market put on the house and have a great laugh at the big thicks who maybe worked in the same factory job with their partner for 20 odd years.
Imagine...FACTORY workers lived in your new home, better get out the bleach quick smart.

Serves them right I say, sticking in a factory job and supporting their family, until through no fault of their own, the factory shuts up shop and off to China or elsewhere with them for cheaper labour. Damn cheek of the unskilled hard worker imo.

Boombastic

JRant wrote: »

My honest answer is I just don't know.

Your right though, only the gamblers seem to be benefiting at the moment.

I don't accept "we" went mad at all. Lots of people I know saw there was no value in the market and rented instead. Now their in early 30's looking to plant roots, so to speak, but are effectively froozen out of the current market.

I know it wasn't everyone, I didn't either, but in general Holland, Germany etc all had the same availability of credit as we did and lots of people over there were looking at the Irish in amazement and our carry on I remember my friends commenting on it in astonishment that people here didn't seem to mind living on credit for holidays, cars, houses etc. We* lost all concept of saving for things until we could afford them. 110% mortgages to furnish the house, throw a new car in with the mortgage. 4 holidays a year. Sure you were nobody if you didn't have a 4X 4 to drop the kids to school :pac:


*in general

KyussBishop

Three Seasons wrote: »

Their losses shouldn't be socialised to the tax payer if that's what your getting at.

But that's not really relevant to the independent contract you have with the bank.

It's perfectly relevant; as I said on the last page:
If I am responsible for inflating the price of an asset, and destabilizing the economy through issuing risky loans based on those inflated assets [making people I issue the loan to, unable to pay], is that all ok and the fault of the person I'm giving the loans to, all because they 'signed the contract'?

Very clearly that is not ok, that is morally repugnant on many levels, and your focusing purely on the letter of the law (the contract) here to justify that, when banks breached regulations and engaged in fraud (i.e. broken the letter and spirit of the law), and by doing so created the very conditions crippling homeowners now.

Paying any respect to the banks share of responsibility here, inherently means them sharing a significant part of the burden, but you are trying to ignore that and imply the burden should fall entirely upon the homeowner; that's de-facto arguing to absolve banks of their responsibilities here.

Three Seasons wrote: »

They should be allowed to fail as a result of their mistakes.

Contracts already signed remain valid regardless of bad business decisions they made.

Imagine you are the owner of a business and you are owed 100k by your debtors. Now imagine you make a bad business decision and invest in an ineffective marketing strategy resulting in losses.

Do you think this gives the debtors the right to say, sorry, not going to pay you back because you made mistakes. Those mistakes are irrelevant to the contract between you and your debtors. They have to pay you your money regardless.

Oh look, more specious analogies; imagine you're the owner of a business, you massively inflate the price of some assets, give out 100k in loans for people to buy those assets, and your reckless business actions cause those debtors to lose their jobs, then when they can't repay because your reckless actions have not just cost them their jobs, but are preventing them from getting another job due to harming the economy; when they are stuck in that situation, you decide to screw them twice-over, by repossessing their assets.

You want to totally absolve the banks of any responsibility here, and are blind to their role in the crisis. To you 'the contract' means banks bear no responsibility for any of their actions.

Smidge

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Maybe we could put them on an island and make them crush rocks to work off their debt.:pac:

And use those rocks to build new houses maybe?
Shacks, preferably.

AlekSmart

Mongfinder General wrote: »

and 20% inflation in the early 80s. Absolute basket case. The difference back then was that sums borrowed were 3 times your salary. Not so 5 years ago.

From memory,my original Irish Permanent criteria was 1.5 times my own salary or twice the joint salary.

Either way,this prudence came to be widely derided by prospective homeowners,as the clamour grew for easier access to funding,and guess what,that clamour was listened to,and thus was born the principle of Light Touch regulation,Irish Style....:rolleyes: