Negative equity-Whats the big deal?

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Give me an alternative explanation then.

They may be in further negative equity than what the statistics are presenting.

In other words, you are reading in the papers or websites that Dublin houses bought in 2007 are currently at 60% negative equity. That figure is based on what the realtors are TRYING to sell them for in their window prices not what they are worth or what they actually sell for.

In reality something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

So when you hear someone say their home in in 60% negative equity you assume it was bought in 2007, but for all you know it could have been bought in 2004 and 40% of what it was bought for is all that person will be able to sell it for, even if the realtor is advertising a different price.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

They may be in further negative equity than what the statistics are presenting.

Clearly, but that's not an explanation.

So when you hear someone say their home in in 60% negative equity you assume it was bought in 2007, but for all you know it could have been bought in 2004 and 40% of what it was bought for is all that person will be able to sell it for, even if the realtor is advertising a different price.

What you've just said is that levels of negative equity across the board are grossly underestimated - and I'd like to presume they're not.

If not, then there must be another reason why a property bought in 2004 has lost 60% of its value when other comparable properties bought at the same time have not.

So either there is a reason for this difference or there's not. If not, then chances are that the property was not bought in 2004, but much closer to 2006. If there is, I'm still curious to hear an explanation.

cson

SBWife wrote: »

Not true, the CSO and PIP numbers are based on actual sales price or as you put it the getting price.

@ clairefontane: The answer above clearly shows you figures being used reflect the extent of NE in your terms.

You seem content to think that anecdotal evidence on your part is applicable across the board in a general sense. It's not.

clairefontaine wrote: »

They may be in further negative equity than what the statistics are presenting.

In other words, you are reading in the papers or websites that Dublin houses bought in 2007 are currently at 60% negative equity. That figure is based on what the realtors are TRYING to sell them for in their window prices not what they are worth or what they actually sell for.

In reality something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

So when you hear someone say their home in in 60% negative equity you assume it was bought in 2007, but for all you know it could have been bought in 2004 and 40% of what it was bought for is all that person will be able to sell it for, even if the realtor is advertising a different price.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Clearly, but that's not an explanation.

What you've just said is that levels of negative equity across the board are grossly underestimated - and I'd like to presume they're not.

If not, then there must be another reason why a property bought in 2004 has lost 60% of its value when other comparable properties bought at the same time have not.

So either there is a reason for this difference or there's not. If not, then chances are that the property was not bought in 2004, but much closer to 2006. If there is, I'm still curious to hear an explanation.

What I am saying is that we can't know with any certainty how much something has depreciated. I'm sure there are a lot of variables here.

SBWife

Given the input of the person claiming the negative equity levels I'm inclined to believe that he paid above the market in 2004, took an equity release in 2006 to buy stuff, took another one a year later for more stuff, and in the meantime has damaged the property through shoddy DIY and lack of basic maintenance (if a person can't be bothered to use the shift key why would they bother cleaning gutters etc.). Therefore his experience is different from that of the market as a whole, and probably should be appearing on the "irrational moaning board" rather than the Irish Economy board.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

What I am saying is that we can't know with any certainty how much something has depreciated. I'm sure there are a lot of variables here.

Sure, but unless KELTICKNIGHTT wishes to expand, Occam's Razor realistically applies. Beyond extraordinary circumstances, few if any variables are going to make a difference.

KELTICKNIGHTT

The Corinthian wrote: »

I allowed for the possibility that I was wrong by offering you the opportunity to explain how else this would have occurred, because otherwise that level of negative equity almost certainly could only be because you bought late. So if you have a reasonable and alternative explanation, then by all means let us know - it's not as if you'll need to give away personal information to do so.

Otherwise, as with the rest of your little rant, you're simply and increasingly simply using indignation and dismissal to cover up for your own shortcomings.

for a person who thinks your smart , your not really, you have ranted bull to this topic about stats etc which in Ireland today has no place or makes no difference to all, you seem to want to blame people which is a very easy cop-out
as for giving away personal info on a place like to a few couple of know it all , get real and wise up, you have a enough info to give you enough idea but then again you views are at most narrow and only your view , the real world matter very little to me ,you have a very narrow view of people in trouble in Ireland , which can be seen by all throughout your post.
so ramble on with this dribble , i just smile when i read it because at most, its worthless and your option and nothing else

clairefontaine

I don't know if this will help anyone, I'm finding a very interesting read.

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/declines-in-property-prices-accelerating-january-2013-cso-indices-published/

It points out that the CSO does not include cash purchases in it's accounting.

So I know you guys don't like anecdotal but having spoken to a couple of retirees who bought last year as well as my local realtor, they are only accepting cash purchases.

This makes this read even more confusing, but still more and more intriguing.

KELTICKNIGHTT

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure, but unless KELTICKNIGHTT wishes to expand, Occam's Razor realistically applies. Beyond extraordinary circumstances, few if any variables are going to make a difference.

more rambling option, you where given some info and you can't get your head around , its a public forum , if you can't get a good idea from info given, then you really don't have a clue ,
I don't think you rambling option will make a difference to me or anyone else in Ireland as most would laugh it off as crap , and in real world makes no difference,
95% of what you rant here on this thread i don't agree with and you haven't proven anything to me to suggest otherwise , just your personal option and stats which mean nothing in the real world and to people in trouble who are trouble with there mortgage which according to you is there fault which portrays you as arrogant .
Its almost sounds like your backing the banks, the politicians and developers, maybe you are one of these group
.

cson

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

you seem to want to blame people which is a very easy cop-out

Equally, it is a very easy cop out for folks who overborrowed to blame the banks for it.

There's an acute lack of personal responsibility in Ireland as a society in my opinion; it comes from Politicians, those in positions of power in Banking and Regulatory services, persons with mortgages and negative equity and the general population. Each seems to blame the other for their particular set of circumstances.

Maybe its an inherent Irish trait (like our inability to form a queue for anything!), I don't know.

KELTICKNIGHTT

clairefontaine wrote: »

I don't know if this will help anyone, I'm finding a very interesting read.

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/declines-in-property-prices-accelerating-january-2013-cso-indices-published/

It points out that the CSO does not include cash purchases in it's accounting.

So I know you guys don't like anecdotal but having spoken to a couple of retirees who bought last year as well as my local realtor, they are only accepting cash purchases.

This makes this read even more confusing, but still more and more intriguing.

I know a few auctioneers , there's alot of bargain buying around the country outside dublin ,Some property going for un-believable prices and mostly cash buys..I heard of one couple who house was sold at 61% there original price, owe bank the rest and have left the country to never return to start new life , sad but way things are going .

The Corinthian

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

as for giving away personal info on a place like to a few couple of know it all , get real and wise up, you have a enough info to give you enough idea but then again you views are at most narrow and only your view , the real world matter very little to me ,you have a very narrow view of people in trouble in Ireland , which can be seen by all throughout your post.

No one is asking you to give away any personal information, unless your case is so unique that it would identify you instantly, even from the most basic of descriptions.

So, TBH, I suspect you're bullshìtting at this stage, because I suspect you know that if you were to give anything more away people would realize that you'd screwed up all by yourself and that's you're in the mess you're in now.

so ramble on with this dribble , i just smile when i read it because at most, its worthless and your option and nothing else

I'm sorry you feel that way, but in fairness your last post was little more than a refusal to clarify anything about your situation and, for the most part, a personal attack on me. Your second follow-up post is nothing other than a personal rant against me, so I'm not going to even bother with it.

With that kind of drivel, you might be better off seeking sympathy and validation elsewhere, as you're not doing too well here.

KELTICKNIGHTT

cson wrote: »

Equally, it is a very easy cop out for folks who overborrowed to blame the banks for it.

There's an acute lack of personal responsibility in Ireland as a society in my opinion; it comes from Politicians, those in positions of power in Banking and Regulatory services, persons with mortgages and negative equity and the general population. Each seems to blame the other for their particular set of circumstances.

Maybe its an inherent Irish trait (like our inability to form a queue for anything!), I don't know.

Theres a lot of things that happened in Ireland that put people here, The bank bust has made it hard for people to sell there property, I don't feel sorry for people who bought second or third property to view to rent as they took a bigger risk , the banks went mad giving away loans to some people if viewed on paper should't have in non- bubble times have got a mortgage. SO everyone is at fault , but the banks and developers broke this country . will pay for generations to come .All these ideas both in Ireland and eu to fix it might or might not help, Ireland wasn't only country which had this problem,,
Property in this country was over priced for long time.

KELTICKNIGHTT

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one is asking you to give away any personal information, unless your case is so unique that it would identify you instantly, even from the most basic of descriptions.

So, TBH, I suspect you're bullshìtting at this stage, because I suspect you know that if you were to give anything more away people would realize that you'd screwed up all by yourself and that's you're in the mess you're in now.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but in fairness your last post was little more than a refusal to clarify anything about your situation and, for the most part, a personal attack on me. Your second follow-up post is nothing other than a personal rant against me, so I'm not going to even bother with it.

With that kind of drivel, you might be better off seeking sympathy and validation elsewhere, as you're not doing too well here.

O BOY , your something else , your arrogance is funny to be honest.
your the poster who like to blame people for being in trouble , regardless of knowing there problems and troubles in everyday,
you really don't have a clue do you..
seeking sympathy here, ARE YOU JOKING, smell the fresh air lol
you seem to be always supporting the parties like politicians, banks and developers , wonder why, are you among this group
waht you think would be said if you asked the likes of MABS OR C.advise , COMSUMERS what they views are and put you options to them , Don't think they agree with you ?

clairefontaine

The other thing about Ireland is all the emigration. When people move they tend to bring their kids with them, which means schools close down.

When families buy homes, they often consider proximity to school, in terms of convenience and of costs of transports to and from the school.

So those houses that used to have a school near by but have closed down with dwindling numbers and also government cutbacks, probably lose a little more equity than other homes do.

My Irish family's home is probably less than what is estimated officially. It pre dates that environmental rating certificate thing and its nearest school has closed down.

And of course with the recession amenities will also close down, bringing down values even further.

If they dont do something about growth soon, there will be real real trouble.

KELTICKNIGHTT

clairefontaine wrote: »

The other thing about Ireland is all the emigration. When people move they tend to bring their kids with them, which means schools close down.

When families buy homes, they often consider proximity to school, in terms of convenience and of costs of transports to and from the school.

So those houses that used to have a school near by but have closed down with dwindling numbers and also government cutbacks, probably lose a little more equity than other homes do.

My Irish family's home is probably less than what is estimated officially. It pre dates that environmental rating certificate thing and its nearest school has closed down.

And of course with the recession amenities will also close down, bringing down values even further.

If they don't do something about growth soon, there will be real real trouble.

I agree with what you say
Ireland is changing fast, think if I'm not mistaken 80k left last year think similar over last 3 years , huge amount of people leaving .. young people getting skills and trades leaving to other country s benefit from Ireland . Same happened in 70's , 80's and part of 90's , but Ireland seems to be in bigger trouble now.

The Corinthian

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

your the poster who like to blame people for being in trouble , regardless of knowing there problems and troubles in everyday,

No, I'm the poster who'll assess what he's been told and can tell when someone is intentionally trying to withhold information to hide something.

you really don't have a clue do you..
seeking sympathy here, ARE YOU JOKING, smell the fresh air lol
you seem to be always supporting the parties like politicians, banks and developers , wonder why, are you among this group

No I'm not; that's just a straw man argument to make yourself feel better.

A lot of people got burnt by the collapse of the property bubble. Actually everyone did, including those who didn't purchase. The 'blame' falls upon those who ultimately fed the bubble from about 2004; developers, media, banks, brokers, politicians and the buyers.

As such, I don't particularly like hearing the "bail me out, I did nothing wrong". Perhaps you did not, but given what you've told us, and refused to tell us, I doubt you're blameless. In fact, after reading what SBWife posted, I'm pretty convinced you managed to screw yourself over all on your own.

If you'd like to have another rant at me, then by all means do so, but if you don't like hearing someone say that they don't believe that you're blameless, then don't keep on claiming you are. Ranting against me simply makes you look more guilty.

KELTICKNIGHTT

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, I'm the poster who'll assess what he's been told and can tell when someone is intentionally trying to withhold information to hide something.

No I'm not; that's just a straw man argument to make yourself feel better.

A lot of people got burnt by the collapse of the property bubble. Actually everyone did, including those who didn't purchase. The 'blame' falls upon those who ultimately fed the bubble from about 2004; developers, media, banks, brokers, politicians and the buyers.

As such, I don't particularly like hearing the "bail me out, I did nothing wrong". Perhaps you did not, but given what you've told us, and refused to tell us, I doubt you're blameless. In fact, after reading what SBWife posted, I'm pretty convinced you managed to screw yourself over all on your own.

If you'd like to have another rant at me, then by all means do so, but if you don't like hearing someone say that they don't believe that you're blameless, then don't keep on claiming you are. Ranting against me simply makes you look more guilty.

there you go again with a rant
where did i or others say want a bale-out ?
stick to facts, not news papers comments
as far as telling me , as you said and you used sbwife in your comment which is silly too, i screwed myself, your funny, comedian even .
you really don't have a clue, you have shown that in your post's
or better still, show me how i did , but
you go rant about blaming people .
show how banks, developers and politicians are not to blame ?

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

My Irish family's home is probably less than what is estimated officially.

Ahhh... That's where your earlier preoccupation with keeping house values up came from.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahhh... That's where your earlier preoccupation with keeping house values up came from.

My preoccupation is not with keeping house prices up but with keeping the punitive begrudgery down, in pointing out logical consequences.

And I have no personal interest in keeping the prices up. If you think you have ESP you might go to the ESP doctor and get in tweaked.

I might also add that I did not ask you if you were a bond holder or a school principal in an attempt to undermine your observations, so I might ask you to oblige me the same courtesy.

KELTICKNIGHTT

GaryCocs wrote: »

Is KelticKnight a troll?

Tried to read
over his posts, my god
he likes to
rant, give out and
blame others.

do you have anything worth reading beside this ?? , anything about thread is about ??

The Corinthian

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

where did i or others say want a bale-out ?
stick to facts, not news papers comments

OK, let's look at the facts. You're looking for:

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

like some posters here who keep going on about people with mortgages a help out or write off
i don't , many don't , just make it a little easier for use to pay,
so to make it simple for you, I'm not looking for a hand out . just better options to pay off over time , till maybe i can sell it .

How would you propose this is done? Bare in mind, more time means more interest and someone's got to pay for that - if it's not you, then we are talking about some form of bail-out.

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

as far as telling me , as you said and you used sbwife in your comment which is silly too, i screwed myself, your funny, comedian even .
you really don't have a clue, you have shown that in your post's
or better still, show me how i did , but
you go rant about blaming people .

show how banks, developers and politicians are not to blame ?

I never said they're not - actually I said they too are to blame:

The Corinthian wrote: »

The 'blame' falls upon those who ultimately fed the bubble from about 2004; developers, media, banks, brokers, politicians and the buyers.

All I am questioning is your repeated implication that many of those who bought, especially those who financially overextended themselves or otherwise foolishly speculated and generally in the last few years of the bubble share no blame.

clairefontaine wrote: »

My preoccupation is not with keeping house prices up but with keeping the punitive begrudgery down, in pointing out logical consequences.

There's a difference between punitive begrudgery and trying to get into some people's thick skulls that a large part of the reason they're in their current situation is down to them.

I've already, repeatedly, stated that I do not believe that it is not solely down to the buyers, even the most irresponsible of them, or that ultimately those who never bought or did so responsibly will not end up and have to put their hands in their pockets for the greater good.

However, I doubt if anyone wants to do that and be told by the person you're helping out that they have nothing to answer for. I don't think you're going to get much constructive dialogue until there is that admission.

I might also add that I did not ask you if you were a bond holder or a school principal in an attempt to undermine your observations, so I might ask you to oblige me the same courtesy.

On that basis, fair enough.

randombar

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

do you have anything worth reading beside this ?? , anything about thread is about ??

Like 90% of the people on this thread my opinion is that yes the banks, media, politicians are to blame but people in 60% negative equity must definitely take the majority of the blame.

KELTICKNIGHTT

The Corinthian wrote: »

OK, let's look at the facts. You're looking for:

How would you propose this is done? Bare in mind, more time means more interest and someone's got to pay for that - if it's not you, then we are talking about some form of bail-out.



I never said they're not - actually I said they too are to blame:

All I am questioning is your repeated implication that many of those who bought, especially those who financially overextended themselves or otherwise foolishly speculated and generally in the last few years of the bubble share no blame.

There's a difference between punitive begrudgery and trying to get into some people's thick skulls that a large part of the reason they're in their current situation is down to them.

I've already, repeatedly, stated that I do not believe that it is not solely down to the buyers, even the most irresponsible of them, or that ultimately those who never bought or did so responsibly will not end up and have to put their hands in their pockets for the greater good.

However, I doubt if anyone wants to do that and be told by the person you're helping out that they have nothing to answer for. I don't think you're going to get much constructive dialogue until there is that admission.

On that basis, fair enough.

don't need , did a deal with bank till house is sold
you still go on and on about people to blame here , no surprise here
you saying people should have know there property would fall by 60% in value , [ which is rubbish]
So you saying people should have know banks would fail across ireland and eu and world even, and banks wouldn't be able to give loans, people way back as far as 2000 should have know about property tax, water charges, septic tank charges,,
are you also saying people should have know maybe all in family home might not have employment , that a rescission would hit Ireland as well as huge drops in property value and banks not lending at same time together ?

KELTICKNIGHTT

GaryCocs wrote: »

Like 90% of the people on this thread my opinion is that yes the banks, media, politicians are to blame but people in 60% negative equity must definitely take the majority of the blame.

did you take a poll that 90% agree with your view ?? , as far as this thread goes doesn't mean much in real world specially as you can count on one hand people posting on this thread lol
blame in what , that there property would drop by 60%

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

OK, let's look at the facts. You're looking for:

How would you propose this is done? Bare in mind, more time means more interest and someone's got to pay for that - if it's not you, then we are talking about some form of bail-out.



I never said they're not - actually I said they too are to blame:

All I am questioning is your repeated implication that many of those who bought, especially those who financially overextended themselves or otherwise foolishly speculated and generally in the last few years of the bubble share no blame.

There's a difference between punitive begrudgery and trying to get into some people's thick skulls that a large part of the reason they're in their current situation is down to them.

I've already, repeatedly, stated that I do not believe that it is not solely down to the buyers, even the most irresponsible of them, or that ultimately those who never bought or did so responsibly will not end up and have to put their hands in their pockets for the greater good.

However, I doubt if anyone wants to do that and be told by the person you're helping out that they have nothing to answer for. I don't think you're going to get much constructive dialogue until there is that admission.

On that basis, fair enough.

Ok, well to move along from getting stuck in the mud over trying to co-erce someone into taking on some culpability, which is fine to complain but only if you can accompany it with solution, lessons learned and what to do in the future.

I see where you are coming from and I share the frustration because I would walk around Dublin and be really annoyed that people tolerated the over priced everything and by not being selective consumers kept up outrageous prices, simply because they were too complacent, didn't know any better.. I don't know. But it was farce. So yes, the consumer was also in on it.

srsly78

clairefontaine wrote: »

lessons learned and what to do in the future

If the last 5 years haven't taught people a lesson then nothing can. There is no substitute for experience.

Also note that there are members of the older generations that have seen this boom/bust cycle before. Make sure you tell your kids!

randombar

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

did you take a poll that 90% agree with your view ?? , as far as this thread goes doesn't mean much in real world specially as you can count on one hand people posting on this thread lol
blame in what , that there property would drop by 60%

Please re-read my comment, 90% of the people on this thread

Blame in buying a property they couldn't afford. No worst case scenario thinking involved in decisions at all.

I'm unsubscribing anyway as this is a frustrating thread to be a part of.

KELTICKNIGHTT

GaryCocs wrote: »

Please re-read my comment, 90% of the people on this thread

Blame in buying a property they couldn't afford. No worst case scenario thinking involved in decisions at all.

I'm unsubscribing anyway as this is a frustrating thread to be a part of.

I referred to the thread comment you made if you read again lol
your view is very narrow minded
no one asked you to post here lol

so your saying all people who bought property as in there home only are solely to blame

The Corinthian

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

you saying people should have know there property would fall by 60% in value

Show us where I said that.

So you saying people should have know banks would fail across ireland and eu and world even, and banks wouldn't be able to give loans, people way back as far as 2000 should have know about property tax, water charges, septic tank charges,,

Show us where I said that too - what I said is that it is insane to presume that over the lifespan of a mortgage to presume that we won't have higher inflation, taxes and unemployment, which is not the same thing.

are you also saying people should have know maybe all in family home might not have employment , that a rescission would hit Ireland as well as huge drops in property value and banks not lending at same time together ?

Unemployment increases in a recession - hardly a difficult relationship to make. A collapse or even slow down in the property market (that was employing 12% of the workforce) is likely to trigger a recession. That banks tighten up during a recession is another pretty obvious insight.

Do you really think that is so difficult to figure out?

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ok, well to move along from getting stuck in the mud over trying to co-erce someone into taking on some culpability, which is fine to complain but only if you can accompany it with solution, lessons learned and what to do in the future.

There's been a few threads where people have discussed solutions and almost without exception they've seen indignation from mortgage holders unable to afford their mortgages at the mere mention that they may end up in any way suffering for it - I cited one such case earlier in the thread.

So honestly, until there is some level of acceptance on the part of those who did buy late and who overextended themselves that they are at least in part responsible for the situation in which they find themselves, I can't see much constructive dialogue taking place.

KELTICKNIGHTT

The Corinthian wrote: »

Show us where I said that.

Show us where I said that too - what I said is that it is insane to presume that over the lifespan of a mortgage to presume that we won't have higher inflation, taxes and unemployment, which is not the same thing.

Unemployment increases in a recession - hardly a difficult relationship to make. A collapse or even slow down in the property market (that was employing 12% of the workforce) is likely to trigger a recession. That banks tighten up during a recession is another pretty obvious insight.

Do you really think that is so difficult to figure out?

There's been a few threads where people have discussed solutions and almost without exception they've seen indignation from mortgage holders unable to afford their mortgages at the mere mention that they may end up in any way suffering for it - I cited one such case earlier in the thread.

So honestly, until there is some level of acceptance on the part of those who did buy late and who overextended themselves that they are at least in part responsible for the situation in which they find themselves, I can't see much constructive dialogue taking place.

again, nothing new here
most didn't over extend themselves, show proof
most people wouldn't have taken out mortgages if they couldn't have afforded it
most of what you saying isn't proven , only your personal view only and the fact you still say that people don't accept blame is not fact
plus i never said people are not to partly to blame which is different view to yours ,, but I disagree are fully to blame and your argument that they should have taken into account the facts have got lot more worse in Ireland across world than most rescission in past is false
you view is very narrow minded . what you don't seem to accept is if banks across eu and Ireland didn't fail and wasn't bailed out, the mess in Ireland would be alot better, people could sell there property.

THE fact is banks did fail and where baled out and , these new taxes and charges are ways of getting money back which is more that people that are struggling with to have too get this money some where to pay for these new property tax, water charges etc

you go on about people in mortgage trouble looking for bale-outs, where do you see people asking for bale-outs, only place you see talking about it is in media , then you go on about people should predict what happened now in Ireland, no body could have predicted banks failing, , massive job losses , then big rescission all at same time which you in every post fail to see
you can allow for certain amount of negative value , rescission happening and loss of work but not to the extend it happened , you seem to cop out by saying otherwise .
anyone from late 2006 on-wards maybe but not before that ..
which makes your argument people should have know it get as worse as it has in last few years,
people only looking pay what they owe but make it a little easier to do so , which means making deals with banks ,
some can't do this , they not expecting bale outs,, only banks get bale-outs

pavb2

Got a sizeable mortgage myself but whatever about people's poor decisions and future value, getting back to the original question it must be soul destroying working to pay for a property which is now only worth a fraction of the original sales price.

Godge

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

don't need , did a deal with bank till house is sold
you still go on and on about people to blame here , no surprise here
you saying people should have know there property would fall by 60% in value , [ which is rubbish]
So you saying people should have know banks would fail across ireland and eu and world even, and banks wouldn't be able to give loans, people way back as far as 2000 should have know about property tax, water charges, septic tank charges,,
are you also saying people should have know maybe all in family home might not have employment , that a rescission would hit Ireland as well as huge drops in property value and banks not lending at same time together ?

You got a deal with the banks, that means you should be graciously thanking the rest of us taxpayers on here for the recapitalisation of the banks which gave them enough funding to do a deal with you. We are all paying more tax so that you and others like you get deals. A little thanks would be appreciated.

KELTICKNIGHTT

Godge wrote: »

You got a deal with the banks, that means you should be graciously thanking the rest of us taxpayers on here for the recapitalisation of the banks which gave them enough funding to do a deal with you. We are all paying more tax so that you and others like you get deals. A little thanks would be appreciated.

You got arrogance there in this comment , would be better if you know what your talking about , but . clearly you don't lol
Tax payers which i am one of , only are paying off bank bale-out PLUS
MY bank that i have mortage with is NOT covered by Irish tax payers , only British
They don't do write down or write offs , which i wouldn't look for if they did.

my deal has nothing to do with you or tax payers and doesn't come from tax payers

I can till you why as you don't seem to know much here, my deal is
for 6 months i be paying interest only till things get better , then we both review it again etc
plus any deal with banks people make has nothing to do with tax payers..
people with mortages will pay there mortages one way or another, weather a deal of some sort or pay on half property now and when thats paid , pay the rest

KELTICKNIGHTT

TO make it clear
I don't believe in write-offs or bale-outs of mortgages
but i do believe there should be better ways for people to aid them in paying there mortgages, 2 different things.
some bank are setting aside 50% of mortgage and letting people pay other , when first 50% paid off , then they can deal with last 50%
not all banks are doing this .my bank won't , so my options are limited with them.
most of us are waiting for banks to get back to normal where they will be lending more regular , so people can get mortgages, but not like it was where banks when wild and threw mortgages and loans at people.

The Corinthian

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

most didn't over extend themselves, show proof

I've never said 'most', only 'many', to begin with - I'm tiring of you inability to read. Indeed, many other posters here and on other threads have repeatedly pointed out that they too took out mortgages, but were more careful and thus can afford them - so it's entirely possible that those who overextended themselves are a vocal minority.

Secondly, I find it more than a little ironic that directly after I challenge you to come up with proof of your claims of what I said, you fail to come up with any such proof and instead start demanding it of others.

most people wouldn't have taken out mortgages if they couldn't have afforded it

That's not what overextending yourself means though Einstein.

One can well afford afford a mortgage at the time you take it out, but only a complete moron does so believing that personal economic circumstances will remain stable over the lifespan of the mortgage. Or, and this is just as likely, they never intended to see through the lifespan of the mortgage, but 'flip' the property at a profit, but got caught when the music stopped.

Those who overextended themselves did so by seriously underestimating any potential danger of recession, tax increases, drop in personal income, interest rates, not to mention maximizing what they borrowed so that even during the boom they had limited safety margins should the economy changed.

All of which is independent of negative equity; one could be in a situation where they have not overextended themselves, can still afford to pay their mortgage, but because they bought in 2006, they're still holding onto a property worth less than they paid for.

most of what you saying isn't proven , only your personal view only and the fact you still say that people don't accept blame is not fact
plus i never said people are not to partly to blame which is different view to yours ,, but I disagree are fully to blame and your argument that they should have taken into account the facts have got lot more worse in Ireland across world than most rescission in past is false

I have never said that those who were reckless during the bubble are "fully to blame" - I've even repeatedly pointed this out to anyone literate enough to read.

And my 'opinion', my thesis if you will, is hardly rocket science. Property prices were in free fall long before a single new tax was introduced. Many people were undoubtedly leavaraging themselves to dangerous levels - you can even see it in threads on the Accommodation & Property board here, if you care to check.

Meanwhile your 'opinion' is what? Magically had we just let the banks collapse and not added any new taxes we'd all be much better off? Is that it? For all your rage in your posts, you've not really come out with much which is cogent, I'm afraid.

you view is very narrow minded . what you don't seem to accept is if banks across eu and Ireland didn't fail and wasn't bailed out, the mess in Ireland would be alot better, people could sell there property.

So, lets consider that they we not bailed out (actually bought out, more correctly). What would have occurred in your view? Business as usual, or that at the time the two main retail banks in Ireland, in particular AIB, were in serious danger of collapsing, something much worse? And how much better off would we all be if AIB collapsed? Those with their life savings there certainly wouldn't be. Those who would lose confidence in any bank and take their money out, triggering further collapses, wouldn't be.

For all your accusations of my being 'narrow minded', you've not thought a lot of this through.

you go on about people in mortgage trouble looking for bale-outs, where do you see people asking for bale-outs, only place you see talking about it is in media

Actually I see it here all the time. I asked you what might you suggest that does not ultimately mean someone else paying for your mortgage, because that is a bail out, even if just partial, unless there is something equitable in return. No response from you.

So we bailed out the banks and now we own them. If we help out people like you, what will you give in return? And if you don't want to give anything in return, then you're just looking for a bail out.

then you go on about people should predict what happened now in Ireland, no body could have predicted banks failing, , massive job losses , then big rescission all at same time which you in every post fail to see
you can allow for certain amount of negative value , rescission happening and loss of work but not to the extend it happened , you seem to cop out by saying otherwise .

No one could have predicted it all, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't predict some or even a very good part of it - in fact, many did; beginning with the prediction that it was a bubble that was going to burst.

some can't do this , they not expecting bale outs,, only banks get bale-outs

Get off the cross, someone needs the wood.

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

some bank are setting aside 50% of mortgage and letting people pay other , when first 50% paid off , then they can deal with last 50%

Please explain; are you saying that the banks are also freezing the interest charged on that second half? Or what?

clairefontaine

Would people please stop saying we own the banks. We do not own the banks. The tax payer is lending them money, not giving them money in exchange for any stake in them.

And I don't really know what the tax payer is getting in return for that. Does anyone else know? Oh wait...I do... less money to pay their mortgage with.

Is a possible part of the solution to open up competition to foreign banks for lending and current/savings accounts? There are only about five banks in Ireland, not much room for competition.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to own your own home for your family. This can hardly be seen as greedy and I cant blame people for not seeing higher interest rates or phenomenal taxes, even double taxes of which there are plenty, but sometimes you have some good luck and sometimes you have some bad luck. A lot of people had some very expensive bad luck. Some of it can be apportioned to blindness, some to human fallibility, and some to plain old bad luck.

Ireland has draconian Dickensian debt and bankruptcy laws which are going to make things much worse.

I'd be very surprised if anyone would want to take out a mortgage here ever again. If they don't come up with something better than what they currently have, they will fail anyway, because banks make money from lending money and no one with half a brain would want to borrow from an Irish bank after this.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Would people please stop saying we own the banks. We do not own the banks. The tax payer is lending them money, not giving them money in exchange for any stake in them.

So the nationalization of AIB never happened? And the government does not have any ownership of either Bank of Ireland or Permanent TSB?

And I don't really know what the tax payer is getting in return for that. Does anyone else know?

Personally, I think it's not a bad long term investment. When the government stepped in, it effectively was able to pick up a good share, and with AIB the whole shabang, of these banks for less than cents on the Euro. That may not seem great now, but fast forward twenty years, long after the dust has settled on this mess and consider what a re-privatization of AIB will mean to the Irish coffers.

Is a possible part of the solution to open up competition to foreign banks for lending and current/savings accounts? There are only about five banks in Ireland, not much room for competition.

It was already open. RBS in particular competed aggressively in the Irish market.

Bare in mind that foreign mortgages are not always a good idea. Consider the many Poles who took advantage of the low interest rates offered by Swiss banks and what happened to their repayments when the Zloty depreciated by over 30% against the Franc.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to own your own home for your family.

No one has suggested there is anything wrong with that.

clairefontaine

I am under the impression the government is lending the money to the banks. Is this incorrect? Have they given them the money?

If they are significant shareholders, how much saying and voting power to they have?

As for foreign banks- I didn't mean taking out money in a different currency. That would be very risky.

SBWife

clairefontaine wrote: »

I am under the impression the government is lending the money to the banks. Is this incorrect? Have they given them the money?

If they are significant shareholders, how much saying and voting power to they have?

As for foreign banks- I didn't mean taking out money in a different currency. That would be very risky.

Government shareholding is now c.15% in BOI (was higher but the bank has since been recapitalised) and 99% in AIB.

SBWife

KBC, Rabobank and Ulster Bank are also non-Irish banks, given the size of the market there's plenty to choose from.

clairefontaine

SBWife wrote: »

Government shareholding is now c.15% in BOI (was higher but the bank has since been recapitalised) and 99% in AIB.

Ok so that money has been given, not leant and the government now owns AIB?

Sorry but that is f******* up.

SBWife

It hasn't been given, an asset has been purchased. While the value of that asset might be a matter for debate it's still an exchange and not a gift.

clairefontaine

SBWife wrote: »

It hasn't been given, an asset has been purchased. While the value of that asset might be a matter for debate it's still an exchange and not a gift.

Still f****** up.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

If they are significant shareholders, how much saying and voting power to they have?

Not sure, but it does not appear insignificant: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/state-owned-banks-told-to-cut-pay-and-pensions-1.1323396

As for foreign banks- I didn't mean taking out money in a different currency. That would be very risky.

Indeed, but any EU bank can open up shop in Ireland and offer mortgages, and at the end of the day it's up to them to consider Ireland a good market to go into and do just that. Otherwise you'll have to go to them, abroad, and while many are in the Eurozone, some (notably the UK) are not and that's where risk comes in.

But with any financial investment, risk always comes in; regardless of how much people want to play dumb after the fact.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Still f****** up.

As I said, I suspect it'll turn out to be a good long term investment and it also ultimately saved the collapse of AIB and with it the loss of many people's savings.

Now, if you want to object to it on an ideological, anti-government intervention, basis, fair enough; however that's another debate.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not sure, but it does not appear insignificant: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/state-owned-banks-told-to-cut-pay-and-pensions-1.1323396

Indeed, but any EU bank can open up shop in Ireland and offer mortgages, and at the end of the day it's up to them to consider Ireland a good market to go into and do just that. Otherwise you'll have to go to them, abroad, and while many are in the Eurozone, some (notably the UK) are not and that's where risk comes in.

But with any financial investment, risk always comes in; regardless of how much people want to play dumb after the fact.

As I said, I suspect it'll turn out to be a good long term investment and it also ultimately saved the collapse of AIB and with it the loss of many people's savings.

Now, if you want to object to it on an ideological, anti-government intervention, basis, fair enough; however that's another debate.

Given how they badly the government has cocked things up I am in no doubt they will bring down their own demise of AIB too. It's only a matter of time.

SBWife

clairefontaine wrote: »

Still f****** up.

Would you have preferred the Cyprus alternative? Or just the complete collapse of the banking system?

clairefontaine

SBWife wrote: »

Would you have preferred the Cyprus alternative? Or just the complete collapse of the banking system?

Don't hold your breath. Anglo collapsed after the government pumped in 30 billion.

HeeBeeGeeBee

It saddens me to hear the pompous soundings of all those holier than thou folks who suddenly become an authority on how people in negative equity are trying to pick the pockets of the 'honest taxpayer'. I am in Negative equity, and it bugs the **** out of me. Why? Not because I bought an Apt. with my partner to sell on at a 'huge profit' but to move out of my parents house and start my own life. That is all.

All Im asking is for the chance to move to a more suitable place if and when the time comes from the banks who thus far have stonewalled such requests from those not looking for a bailout but rather constructive dialogue and a resonable and fair solution. Be this through a negative equity mortgage or whatever the case. The banks have been looked after in this country, its high time they began to return the favour. For those who consistently lambast others, who foolishly or not, bought in the boom times try for a moment stepping down from your gilded soapboxes and walking in one of your fellow contrymens shoes.

We are all just trying to get by after all and this particular negative equity casualty is certainly not looking to be bailed out by you or any other (fellow) taxpayers.

Best of luck to all.

Godge

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

You got arrogance there in this comment , would be better if you know what your talking about , but . clearly you don't lol

It is very difficult to make sense of your posts because of the style of writing. If I don't know what I am talking about, it is because I have misunderstood your point.

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

Tax payers which i am one of , only are paying off bank bale-out PLUS
MY bank that i have mortage with is NOT covered by Irish tax payers , only British
They don't do write down or write offs , which i wouldn't look for if they did.

my deal has nothing to do with you or tax payers and doesn't come from tax payers

Some British banks were bailed out by the British taxpayer (mostly the ones who had operations in Ireland), are you banking with one of those? In that case, you should be thanking the British taxpayer.

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

I can till you why as you don't seem to know much here, my deal is
for 6 months i be paying interest only till things get better ,

If you are paying interest only for 6 months which wasn't part of your original deal, the bank is not getting a capital repayment that it initially provided for and is therefore making a loss (albeit small) that it didn't expect. In the case of bailed-out banks whether by British or Irish taxpayers, that loss is being borne by a taxpayer somewhere so be grateful if that is the case.

At the very minimum, the bank does not have the capital you should have repaid which it could then have lent out to small businesses for investment purposes so someone somewhere is losing out for the grace period you were given and ultimately the taxpayer shares that loss either directly in banks bailed out or indirectly through reduced revenues from lower economic activity.

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

then we both review it again etc
plus any deal with banks people make has nothing to do with tax payers..
people with mortages will pay there mortages one way or another, weather a deal of some sort or pay on half property now and when thats paid , pay the rest

In each of those cases, the bank will make an unexpected loss covered by the taxpayer and us taxpayers will have to fund it whether we like it or not.