Negative equity-Whats the big deal?

The Corinthian

HeeBeeGeeBee wrote: »

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.

And you couldn't move out of your parents house and start your own life by renting? You could only do this by buying? Seriously?

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.

You're not going to get much of a constructive dialogue while you insist that you had to buy just to move out of your parent's home, no more than had you might have bought a five bedroom house with your girlfriend because eventually you'll start a family as such justifications betray excess rather than any rational reason for home ownership.

These are examples of the sort of ridiculous behaviour of the bubble period, where people went into debt for significantly more than they needed, let alone could safely afford and inevitably found themselves in trouble the moment there was a shock to the system.

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.

To begin with the banks were 'bailed out' at a cost to themselves - the banks owners have lost much if not all of their equity in those banks. If you want the favour to be repaid in kind, I suspect you should expect to lose much if not all of your equity in your property.

And if you think that's unfair, then that's most likely because you're labouring still under the delusion that you're solely a victim. If so, we're not in a position to have a constructive dialogue yet.

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.

LOL. "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson.

HeeBeeGeeBee

The Corinthian wrote: »

And you couldn't move out of your parents house and start your own life by renting? You could only do this by buying? Seriously?

You're not going to get much of a constructive dialogue while you insist that you had to buy just to move out of your parent's home, no more than had you might have bought a five bedroom house with your girlfriend because eventually you'll start a family as such justifications betray excess rather than any rational reason for home ownership.

These are examples of the sort of ridiculous behaviour of the bubble period, where people went into debt for significantly more than they needed, let alone could safely afford and inevitably found themselves in trouble the moment there was a shock to the system.

To begin with the banks were 'bailed out' at a cost to themselves - the banks owners have lost much if not all of their equity in those banks. If you want the favour to be repaid in kind, I suspect you should expect to lose much if not all of your equity in your property.

And if you think that's unfair, then that's most likely because you're labouring still under the delusion that you're solely a victim. If so, we're not in a position to have a constructive dialogue yet.

LOL. "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson.

Cheers.

Godge

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

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 banks can't get back to normal and start regular lending until they get back the money they already lent out to those who can't or won't pay them back.

donutheadhomer

mariaalice wrote: »

I have a friend who got her a apartment in 2007, needless to say it is in huge negative equality, she met a guy 3 years ago and now they are getting married he already had a house, she had a tracker mortgage on a very good rate.

She is in the process of renting out her apartment at the moment and is getting enough to cover the mortgage and charged plus about 200 euro a month, she is happy enough with this and realised that by the time she has paid the mortgage off she will most likely have paid twice the price of the asset she has.. however her way of looking at it.. is that she has no choice, she has to live now, and most importantly its not impacting on her financially at the moment.

her tenants will have paid twice her purchase price

The Corinthian

HeeBeeGeeBee wrote: »

Cheers.

No, honestly - why you couldn't move out of your parents house and start your own life by renting instead of buying?

FREETV

Head The Wall wrote: »

Why should the bank reduce the debt? Does a garage give you the loan value of a car on trade in or what the market value of the car is

Do you understand that the banking system in place is a con manufactured by the Elite Bankers themselves? A debt based economy con. The money isn't real, it doesn't exist, the banks make it up electronically, loan this made up money and charge their customers interest. For every person who can pay off the full mortgage another person will fail.
These guys under the EU dictatorship are calling all of the financial shots in Ireland. It is a debt grip.

The Corinthian

FREETV wrote: »

Do you understand that the banking system in place is a con manufactured by the Elite Bankers themselves? A debt based economy con. The money isn't real, it doesn't exist, the banks make it up electronically, loan this made up money and charge their customers interest. For every person who can pay off the full mortgage another person will fail.
These guys under the EU dictatorship are calling all of the financial shots in Ireland. It is a debt grip.

The Reptoid Grandmaster categorically denies that they're behind this and the whole pound of flesh thing in the Merchant of Venice was just a cultural misunderstanding.

FREETV

:

The Corinthian wrote: »

The Reptoid Grandmaster categorically denies that they're behind this and the whole pound of flesh thing in the Merchant of Venice was just a cultural misunderstanding.

Good one.

FREETV

EurasianBadger wrote: »

her tenants will have paid twice her purchase price

Exactly, another reason why renting a property is money down the drain and only benefits the Landlords.

FREETV

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, honestly - why you couldn't move out of your parents house and start your own life by renting instead of buying?

I have never seen a Reptilian, have you? Do you follow or believe David Icke about Reptilians controlling the world and the worldwide economy.

SBWife

FREETV wrote: »

Exactly, another reason why renting a property is money down the drain and only benefits the Landlords.

Depending on interest rates and the length of the loan you could pay more than twice the purchase price over the life of a home mortgage.

FREETV

SBWife wrote: »

Depending on interest rates and the length of the loan you could pay more than twice the purchase price over the life of a home mortgage.

True, the Banks have us all by the short and curlies as they say.

The Corinthian

FREETV wrote: »

Exactly, another reason why renting a property is money down the drain and only benefits the Landlords.

Not always. As was pointed out, that we were in a bubble that was likely to see a drop in values was pretty much universally accepted by 2006 and was hardly unknown long before that.

On that basis, even allowing for continued appreciation at 15% p.a. and rent levels of the time, the bubble would have had to continue an unrealistic long amount of time before it would have been better off for someone to stop renting - in short, it didn't take much to work out that the net drop in value would be greater than the rent paid while waiting for the bubble to burst even in the most optimistic projections.

The idea that rent is dead money is often correct, however not always. It's just that it's become a cliché that people come out with without really questioning why.

FREETV

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not always. As was pointed out, that we were in a bubble that was likely to see a drop in values was pretty much universally accepted by 2006 and was hardly unknown long before that.

On that basis, even allowing for continued appreciation at 15% p.a. and rent levels of the time, the bubble would have had to continue an unrealistic long amount of time before it would have been better off for someone to stop renting - in short, it didn't take much to work out that the net drop in value would be greater than the rent paid while waiting for the bubble to burst even in the most optimistic projections.

The idea that rent is dead money is often correct, however not always. It's just that it's become a cliché that people come out with without really questioning why.

Yes, true and the question of non ownership of the rented property was my driving force behind my earlier statement.

The Corinthian

FREETV wrote: »

I have never seen a Reptilian, have you? Do you follow or believe David Icke about Reptilians controlling the world and the worldwide economy.

Indeed I don't believe in them, which is why I posted that bit of satire in response to your little conspiracy rant.

FREETV wrote: »

Yes, true and the question of non ownership of the rented property was my driving force behind my earlier statement.

I don't think you understood my post at all.

KELTICKNIGHTT

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

Get off the cross, someone needs the wood.

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

for a poster who thinks so much about blaming people for everything , you not too smart
i gave you enough info, even with half a brain , you could figure it out
your excuse is for me to give personal info on a public forum which is a NO , NO in real world , YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT
YOUR excuse to blame people for all is full of holes and stupid
a few people i know looked at this thread who work in financial field , all they could do is laugh at your posts and sbwife. pretty much sums it up really

yu seem to fail too see the most common reasons why people including myself are i negative value ,
You also fail to see why things are getting worse,
was even said today, property is falling in value again, 3% in jan-feb 2013.
march was a drop and this month a drop ,
property market was inflated with property going up , material and labour when up by big margins
currently material hasn't dropped in price, but labour has
During the so called celtic tiger , property was mad prices, house where mad prices, WAS IT PEOPLE FAULT THIS HAPPENED ??

WHERE do you get this RUBBISH that your bailing out anyone, WHERE, in your head lol

tax payers including myself with be paying for banks bale-outs etc which shouldn't have happened , that't another story
but tax payers won't be bale-out people with mortgages, it won't happen , so move on lol

do you watch the news , media and reports, then you might well know that some banks , Not all are making deals with people in troubled mortages , like AIB and Bank of Ireland..
they set aside 50% of mortgage and people pay other 50% which is not interest only
THE 50% that a person has with AIB , The FROZEN 50% set aside till first 50% is paid in FULL. AIB Don't charge interest on frozen amount but Bank of ireland DO

I agree 100% with HeeBeeGeeBee in post 318
sums it up nicely :-)

HeeBeeGeeBee

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, honestly - why you couldn't move out of your parents house and start your own life by renting instead of buying?

This is as honest as you'll get mate:

I wanted to own my own place.
- Is that a sin? No
- Was I trying to become a property tycoon? No
- Could I have rented and waited? Yes
- Did I? No
- Am I in negative equity? Yes
- Are there worse things in life? Yes
- Will I get over it? Yes
- Do I expect the banks to write off my negative equity? Certainly not. I will pay every penny I owe.
- Would I like a small bit more space in time? I would of course.
- Does that make me a greedy individual with excessive needs?
No, I just need another room to store all my expensive clothes and fine jewellry:)
- Do you have any quotes of your own or do you depend on www.brainyquote.com/for all yours? I think we all know the answer to this.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson." LOL Thats a real nugget of wisdom right there.

Good day fine sir,

Im off to meet my own fellow reptilians for a mint tulip

KELTICKNIGHTT

Godge wrote: »

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.




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.




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.




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.

MORE excuse about being able to read or not lol
Maybe I should put in capital letters so you can read lol

tax payers which I'm one of won't be bailing people with troubled mortgages,
tax payers are paying out for bale-out of banks , which on there troubled books where more than mortgages , huge amounts went to developers etc too
As me thanking British ta payer, for what , banks went wild with lending and shares, , gave loans to people and developers that should haven't got financial loans , Then PROPERTY PRICES WENT WILD HIGH IN PRICES ,,Was reckless lending that brought banks down.

people in troubled mortgages will pay the price one way or another, themselves , With banks , but people will have to pay off the full mortgage what ever deal is made .

KELTICKNIGHTT

Godge wrote: »

The banks can't get back to normal and start regular lending until they get back the money they already lent out to those who can't or won't pay them back.

Big part of the problem ,,
its a catch 22 as they say,,
banks can't lend till they have money too , even doe the government gave them funds, banks are also very cautious which is abit late now .

A lot of property was too over priced , now is dropped by large amounts, loss of employment and new taxes coming is making it worse,
people are not spending too which isn't helping

KELTICKNIGHTT

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, honestly - why you couldn't move out of your parents house and start your own life by renting instead of buying?

Ireland had always a culture of looking to own there own homes, parts of Europe like Germany don't just rent.
maybe here on Ireland will change that culture trend and rent more, might have no choice too

The Corinthian

KELTICKNIGHTT, given you don't seem to actually read any of my posts to you, I'll extend the same courtesy and just sum up our discussion.

You have given us a small amount of information about your own case which has been questioned by more than one person. Rather than elaborate or respond to some of these queries, you've simply become belligerent and avoided doing so. So no, I don't believe that you acted responsibly when purchasing and I doubt many others here do.

You are in complete denial about borrower responsibility. As much as you've tried to claim falsely that others are pushing all the blame on the borrowers, no one has said this. However, you're at this stage bleating this line out as a means to avoid even questioning if borrowers have any responsibility.

You've done nothing to date other than plead or even demand (on the basis of the long term democracy, patriotism or whatever) that life should be made easier for those so trapped in NE mortgages. When asked how, you've suggested freezing interest - which ultimately is lost money. That money ends up being paid by AIB, which is now a state asset - so it's ultimately the taxpayer bailing you out in that scenario, despite you claiming you didn't want to be bailed out.

As for your follow up post where buying instead of renting is down to Irish culture - other than being utter bullshìt (because everyone buys when they move out of mommy and daddy's in Ireland - not), it is one of the single most stupid things I've ever heard coming out of someone.

Honestly, given the offensive language you've used, your lack of literacy and general, almost sociopathic, inability to see yourself as anything other than a victim, I've no doubt that if you don't get your bail out, you'll happily leave the key to your property in the door and skip the country before long - and have justified it to yourself because you're such a victim.

I've lost all interest engaging with you further in this discussion.

The Corinthian

HeeBeeGeeBee wrote: »

This is as honest as you'll get mate:

That's not very honest, because you've not answered. If, as you said, you wanted to move out of your parents home, why buy instead of rent?

- Do you have any quotes of your own or do you depend on www.brainyquote.com/for all yours? I think we all know the answer to this.

I don't actually need a Web site to cite quotations. Read a few books (not the type you buy at airports) and find out why.

FREETV

I have researched about everything, I am no Conspiracy Theorist, I believe in proven facts. I know for a fact that what I have said is true, ex top bankers have all said it and economists who no longer get paid to lie on television.

FREETV

It was the Banks, Property Developers, speculators and corrupt politicians in charge who were and are to blame for this and nobody else, the public just went along with the so called Celtic Tiger fabrication nonsense. the Propaganda Network which we pay a TV license to fuelled the naivety.

I told an ex girlfriends brother in law earning a grand a week as a carpenter that I predicted that he would be out of a job and that the whole thing would come crashing down back in late 2006 between eighteen months and two years from then and I was correct.

The Corinthian

FREETV wrote: »

I have researched abut everything, I am no Conspiracy Theorist, I believe in proven facts. I know for a fact that what I have said is true, ex top bankers have all said it and economists who no longer get paid to lie on television.

What 'facts' do you have that the bankers were all or in majority intentionally looking to defraud borrowers and media economists consciously lied to the public?

FREETV wrote: »

It was the Banks, Property Developers, speculators and corrupt politicians in charge who were and are to blame for this and nobody else, the public just went along with the so called Celtic Tiger fabrication nonsense.

When I read things that used to be said, back in the bubble, like this, I'd tend to dispute the blanket innocence you seem happy to assign to buyers.

HeeBeeGeeBee

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's not very honest, because you've not answered. If, as you said, you wanted to move out of your parents home, why buy instead of rent?

Because I didn't want to rent, how is that dishonest?

I don't actually need a Web site to cite quotations. Read a few books (not the type you buy at airports) and find out why.

Ha, good man. Heres a quote that I think pretty much aptly describes the great intellect of an individual like yourself who appears to take pleasure in pointing out the suppposed shortcomings of other members arguments, literacy etc. to fortify their own repugnant ego.

"Taking to pieces is the trade of those who cannot construct" - RW Emerson

- Emerson by Lawrence Buell

Bought in easons in Dublin airport a few months ago

(OH THE SHAME!)

KELTICKNIGHTT

The Corinthian wrote: »

KELTICKNIGHTT, given you don't seem to actually read any of my posts to you, I'll extend the same courtesy and just sum up our discussion.

You have given us a small amount of information about your own case which has been questioned by more than one person. Rather than elaborate or respond to some of these queries, you've simply become belligerent and avoided doing so. So no, I don't believe that you acted responsibly when purchasing and I doubt many others here do.

You are in complete denial about borrower responsibility. As much as you've tried to claim falsely that others are pushing all the blame on the borrowers, no one has said this. However, you're at this stage bleating this line out as a means to avoid even questioning if borrowers have any responsibility.

You've done nothing to date other than plead or even demand (on the basis of the long term democracy, patriotism or whatever) that life should be made easier for those so trapped in NE mortgages. When asked how, you've suggested freezing interest - which ultimately is lost money. That money ends up being paid by AIB, which is now a state asset - so it's ultimately the taxpayer bailing you out in that scenario, despite you claiming you didn't want to be bailed out.

As for your follow up post where buying instead of renting is down to Irish culture - other than being utter bullshìt (because everyone buys when they move out of mommy and daddy's in Ireland - not), it is one of the single most stupid things I've ever heard coming out of someone.

Honestly, given the offensive language you've used, your lack of literacy and general, almost sociopathic, inability to see yourself as anything other than a victim, I've no doubt that if you don't get your bail out, you'll happily leave the key to your property in the door and skip the country before long - and have justified it to yourself because you're such a victim.

I've lost all interest engaging with you further in this discussion.

ANOTHER RUBBISH POST
I'M not WITH AIB , SO you got that wrong again, no surprise,
I never said the borrower had no irresponsibility , but i disagreed with your option to what there irresponsibility was
you keep going on about bale-out, get facts straight , borrowers with mortgages aren't getting bale-out , more mis information by you,lol
your narrow self opinionated view can been seen easily and laughed by most

you say things that don't exist like bale-out for mortgages, where, show proof ??
AS for banks like AIB and bank of ireland offering freezing of 50% of mortage was in media, have a look , give you that info you don't understand

As far as me giving personal information on a public forum to you lol, The fact you can't get your head around anyone shouldn't give personal information on a open forum is a big NO NO about anything for anyone , anyone with half abit of cop on would know why,, Why can't you,, go figure
Plus what you would have to tell me if i did would be worthless as a friend in financial sector was reading this thread with great amusement , you posts told him everything .


most you options i don't agree with as rubbish, you find it easier to blame people


If you don't engage with me , I don't mind,,, really


AS HeeBeeGeeBee said in post 318 would sum up 100% my view
As HeeBeeGeeBee said, I will pay back myself every cent i owe to bank , as HeeBeeGeeBee said, just let borrowers pay back there mortgage easier in bad times till at least they can get back on there feet, or do you have a problem with this too

but then again, please don't engage

clairefontaine

FREETV wrote: »

It was the Banks, Property Developers, speculators and corrupt politicians in charge who were and are to blame for this and nobody else, the public just went along with the so called Celtic Tiger fabrication nonsense. the Propaganda Network which we pay a TV license to fuelled the naivety.

I told an ex girlfriends brother in law earning a grand a week as a carpenter that I predicted that he would be out of a job and that the whole thing would come crashing down back in late 2006 between eighteen months and two years from then and I was correct.

Exactly. But that's the key phrase in there.....THE PUBLIC JUST WENT ALONG WITH ....

Sheep, slaves, serfs, group thinkers.... same people who still pay their tv license to that brainwashing machine.

The Corinthian

HeeBeeGeeBee wrote: »

Ha, good man. Heres a quote that I think pretty much aptly describes the great intellect of an individual like yourself who appears to take pleasure in pointing out the suppposed shortcomings of other members arguments, literacy etc. to fortify their own repugnant ego.

You still haven't explained why you had to buy a house, and couldn't rent, to move out of your parent's home, as you originally claimed.

Surely you must see how ridiculous that is as a reason to buy?

clairefontaine

I'm sure this sounds pretty ridiculous, but of the government can buy stakes in a bankrupt bank, why can't they buy stakes in a private mortgage or the bank buy stakes or shares in the private mortgage? So that would cut off some of the mortgage burden from the individual buyers but if and when the house is resold they stake holder would share some of the profit?

HeeBeeGeeBee

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm sure this sounds pretty ridiculous, but of the government can buy stakes in a bankrupt bank, why can't they buy stakes in a private mortgage or the bank buy stakes or shares in the private mortgage? So that would cut off some of the mortgage burden from the individual buyers but if and when the house is resold they stake holder would share some of the profit?

Finally someone with an actual valid constructive suggestion.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

KELTICKNIGHTT, given you don't seem to actually read any of my posts to you, I'll extend the same courtesy and just sum up our discussion.

You have given us a small amount of information about your own case which has been questioned by more than one person. Rather than elaborate or respond to some of these queries, you've simply become belligerent and avoided doing so. So no, I don't believe that you acted responsibly when purchasing and I doubt many others here do.

You are in complete denial about borrower responsibility. As much as you've tried to claim falsely that others are pushing all the blame on the borrowers, no one has said this. However, you're at this stage bleating this line out as a means to avoid even questioning if borrowers have any responsibility.

You've done nothing to date other than plead or even demand (on the basis of the long term democracy, patriotism or whatever) that life should be made easier for those so trapped in NE mortgages. When asked how, you've suggested freezing interest - which ultimately is lost money. That money ends up being paid by AIB, which is now a state asset - so it's ultimately the taxpayer bailing you out in that scenario, despite you claiming you didn't want to be bailed out.

As for your follow up post where buying instead of renting is down to Irish culture - other than being utter bullshìt (because everyone buys when they move out of mommy and daddy's in Ireland - not), it is one of the single most stupid things I've ever heard coming out of someone.

Honestly, given the offensive language you've used, your lack of literacy and general, almost sociopathic, inability to see yourself as anything other than a victim, I've no doubt that if you don't get your bail out, you'll happily leave the key to your property in the door and skip the country before long - and have justified it to yourself because you're such a victim.

I've lost all interest engaging with you further in this discussion.

In the country it is quite the norm to rent or live with your parents while you are getting planning permission for building a house and then for the duration of the construction.

It is my understanding people in agricultural careers don't really rent land. They own it for their farming or their horse stables or what have you.

FREETV

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed I don't believe in them, which is why I posted that bit of satire in response to your little conspiracy rant.

I don't think you understood my post at all.

I did The Corinthian, I understand the most complex things, I studied Electronics in College.

FREETV

clairefontaine wrote: »

Exactly. But that's the key phrase in there.....THE PUBLIC JUST WENT ALONG WITH ....

Sheep, slaves, serfs, group thinkers.... same people who still pay their tv license to that brainwashing machine.

That is all the people are when you elect a group of incompetent, immoral, power and wealthy hungry garbage, you are seen as statistics, sheeple, a nuisance and they milk us for all they can get.

They want to raise taxes for a flawed economic system and we the people have no say in the matter,"oh but we were elected by a democratic system" (The mainly fat obese gobdaws in power say)

It isn't democracy when one has no say in the most important issues, mainly the finances, the economy which effects us all but not so much the politicians, brown paper filled bags and all of the expenses and the exorbitant pensions, chauffeurs for the Ministers, many of whom are not qualified to decide anything and are clueless, ignorant snobs.

I never voted , may never and I would never vote for FF, FG or Labour.
Tax the rich who have more expendable income. No? Oh I get it fat, redfaced Politician you are more afraid, feel more threatened by them as they are the Elite of society and you are in league with them and they give you all of those lovely perks, the bribes. No wonder you can afford holiday homes abroad and a top of the range Mercedes Benz while people queue up in the street to get food bags and go to soup kitchens. :pac:

SBWife

FREETV not voting is saying even you don't value your own opinion, if that's the case, how can you expect to have any credence in any argument?

FREETV

SBWife wrote: »

FREETV not voting is saying even you don't value your own opinion, if that's the case, how can you expect to have any credence in any argument?

I don't believe in the present monetary system and politics in general, there are other ways of running the planet. I will not vote for a corrupt system.
Two parties always run the US, pretty similar here too, it doesn't work, they are all the same.

Have you not seen the rise in the unemployed, homeless and people unable to pay for their houses? I'm sure you have, it is time for a new fairer system with a period of transition where everyone has an equal say and benefits accordingly.

No more Politicians in twenty years time hopefully. Look at Fas, useless, the roads, the lack of credit, businesses closing all of the time, particularily retailers, families losing their homes here and abroad.
The system has failed and has been progressively failing for decades now.

skafish

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm sure this sounds pretty ridiculous, but of the government can buy stakes in a bankrupt bank, why can't they buy stakes in a private mortgage or the bank buy stakes or shares in the private mortgage? So that would cut off some of the mortgage burden from the individual buyers but if and when the house is resold they stake holder would share some of the profit?

This is a good suggestion, which has been around for a while. And it may be a suitable option for some people.

The big drawback with it is,of course, the Irish home ownership ideal, whereby we all seem to have an urge to own the property we live in. Then consider the possibility that you sell the bank (in return for a reduction in the mortgage) a portion of your property.

Firstly, they are unlikely to pay any more than the current value (eg, house bought with 80% mortgage in 2006 for €400 000. Mortgage of €320 000. Current value €200 000. Bank buys a 50% stake for 50% of the current value or €100 000. New mortgage value €220 000 less 7 years repayments) which may not reduce the debt value sufficiently to allow the mortgagee continue normally. I can't imagine too many people willingly giving up ownership of more than half their home, can you?
Secondly, what would happen if the bank changed ownership. The original contract may not be binding on the new owners of the bank ad they could possibly look for repayment or sale of the property in a shorter time scale than originally intended.

BTW, I think it is a good idea, just playing devils advocate.

The Corinthian

HeeBeeGeeBee wrote: »

What exactly is ridiculous about buying your first home with your fiancé?

Not what you first said; you said that you wanted to move out of home and had to by buying rather than renting your own place - that alone is ridiculous.

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm sure this sounds pretty ridiculous, but of the government can buy stakes in a bankrupt bank, why can't they buy stakes in a private mortgage or the bank buy stakes or shares in the private mortgage? So that would cut off some of the mortgage burden from the individual buyers but if and when the house is resold they stake holder would share some of the profit?

Except that they probably wouldn't. Why should the government buy any of the property at anything other than current value? If the property has depreciated by 50%, then if the government buys the negative equity, they own it - when they sell, the original owner gets nothing. Why should they?

Even if the deal was more generous and the government was willing to take less equity for every Euro of negative equity they pay, that would still leave many owning well under 50% of the property - something that many would be unable to stomach, as skafish suggested, given they apparently didn't do anything wrong but were duped by all those evil bankers and politicians.

And all assuming that doing something like that would not further cripple the nation with additional taxes to pay for such a scheme. What would that do to the economy? Push those who can pay their mortgages at present and don't qualify, over the edge so they can no longer pay either? Anyone fancy paying another 5% income tax so HeeBeeGeeBee can keep his love nest?

Personally, I feel the best solution may be some level of debt purchase in a small number of the worst of cases, but to instead concentrate on reducing the current levels of taxation and austerity and reignite the economy so that people in such debt can better afford their debts.

SBWife

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I feel the best solution may be some level of debt purchase in a small number of the worst of cases, but to instead concentrate on reducing the current levels of taxation and austerity and reignite the economy so that people in such debt can better afford their debts.

Back in the olden days the solution would be a nice bit of inflation pity our German friends are so terrified of the concept.

Godge

FREETV wrote: »

I did The Corinthian, I understand the most complex things, I studied Electronics in College.

Electronics, based on a simple binary system as opposed to something like Hungarian, a language notoriously complicated?

K-9

The thread is going very off topic, please stay on topic and relevant to the Negative Equity question.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not what you first said; you said that you wanted to move out of home and had to by buying rather than renting your own place - that alone is ridiculous.

Except that they probably wouldn't. Why should the government buy any of the property at anything other than current value? If the property has depreciated by 50%, then if the government buys the negative equity, they own it - when they sell, the original owner gets nothing. Why should they?

Even if the deal was more generous and the government was willing to take less equity for every Euro of negative equity they pay, that would still leave many owning well under 50% of the property - something that many would be unable to stomach, as skafish suggested, given they apparently didn't do anything wrong but were duped by all those evil bankers and politicians.

And all assuming that doing something like that would not further cripple the nation with additional taxes to pay for such a scheme. What would that do to the economy? Push those who can pay their mortgages at present and don't qualify, over the edge so they can no longer pay either? Anyone fancy paying another 5% income tax so HeeBeeGeeBee can keep his love nest?

Personally, I feel the best solution may be some level of debt purchase in a small number of the worst of cases, but to instead concentrate on reducing the current levels of taxation and austerity and reignite the economy so that people in such debt can better afford their debts.

I agree that the better solution is to promote growth and reducing those things that are inhibiting people's ability to pay, but I can't see that happennng. AIB just raised interest rates yesterday, which won't help either.

This government seems to think you can tax your way out of a recession.

Anyway, I think it might work to some extent and I can't think of anything else.

I agree no one was FORCED to by and there was an avaricious status hunger behind the frenzy, but on the other hand, renting affords you very little enforcable rights, so it is understandable to not want to deal with a landlord.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I agree that the better solution is to promote growth and reducing those things that are inhibiting people's ability to pay, but I can't see that happennng.

I can. The political mood in the EU has been moving against austerity for a while now, with Germany's disastrous approach to Cyprus being a bit of a watershed. Quietly we're already seeing the noose of austerity being loosened by the EU, as loans to Ireland and Portugal being extended attests.

Decreasing the levels of taxation and austerity is a win-win; more disposable income, making paying mortgages easier, not to mention the increase in tax revenues from an invigorated economy.

Moral hazard aside, I don't think any widespread debt forgiveness is realistic, if only because we can't afford it. If you forgive debt or even freeze interest, that's money that has to be paid by someone, and there seems to be a lack of thought as to where this money would magically appear from those seeking it.

Additionally, there appears to be a bit of a myth circulating (that you even fell for earlier) than the banks were bailed out with no strings attached - there were strings and that's why those banks are now at least partially if not fully owned now by the state. Property owners looking to "get the same as the banks" should expect exactly that, and that means that many of them will likely lose ownership of their properties, in return for assistance. You may get debt purchase, but I very much doubt you'll get debt forgiveness.

If we could afford it in the first place, of course, which we can't. At least not as a widespread policy.

K-9 wrote: »

The thread is going very off topic, please stay on topic and relevant to the Negative Equity question.

Aye, but that got answered a good while back. Negative equity is really only a problem when you can't pay your mortgage. Otherwise, in the short term, it may not be nice as it effectively traps one with an asset they probably cannot afford to sell, but in the long term (and I mean very long term) prices will climb up again and that negative equity will resolve itself.

So ultimately, it's the ability to pay, not the negative equity, that's really the problem.

KELTICKNIGHTT

K-9 wrote: »

The thread is going very off topic, please stay on topic and relevant to the Negative Equity question.

was off topic for a while now , instead of dealing with negative value , some rather attach and blame borrowers

I tihink the original question was if a property was bought for 500k and now only 300k

Its was best i seen so far on this thread so far said at post 318
Gets A PLUS
with this :


This is as honest as you'll get mate:

I wanted to own my own place.
- Is that a sin? No
- Was I trying to become a property tycoon? No
- Could I have rented and waited? Yes
- Did I? No
- Am I in negative equity? Yes
- Are there worse things in life? Yes
- Will I get over it? Yes
- Do I expect the banks to write off my negative equity? Certainly not. I will pay every penny I owe.
- Would I like a small bit more space in time? I would of course.
- Does that make me a greedy individual with excessive needs?
No, I just need another room to store all my expensive clothes and fine jewellry

Geuze

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm sure this sounds pretty ridiculous, but of the government can buy stakes in a bankrupt bank, why can't they buy stakes in a private mortgage or the bank buy stakes or shares in the private mortgage? So that would cut off some of the mortgage burden from the individual buyers but if and when the house is resold they stake holder would share some of the profit?

A mortgage is a liability to the household.

It is an asset to the lending bank.

You suggest that the bank buy the private mortgage.

But they already own the mortgage.

I think what you suggest is that the bank swap some of the mortgage loan for a share in the house??

clairefontaine

@The Corinthian

Well yes and no. The day the ECB lowers interest rates, the same day AIB raises them.

At the same time debt write offs are alive and well. I am trying to find it online, but I saw a news announcement while waiting in a queue that Independent media got 140 million written off its debt.

There is an article on it here but it does not include the figure.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/26/uk-independentnews-idUKBRE93P09Y20130426


Well duh it's the ability to pay the mortgage that is the problem, but current policy is inhibiting that ability, even if you do have job. And their draconian bankrupt laws are ridiculous. Why would you NOT go to the UK? Why would you go through 12 years of penury all for the privaledge of living in Ireland?

Geuze

Yes, it's bad that large firms like INM can negotiate debt writedowns, while it's nearly impossible for housholds.

See here:

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/the-thomas-crosbie-debt-write-off/

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/who-will-control-inm-after-the-mooted-debt-for-equity-swap/

clairefontaine

SBWife wrote: »

Back in the olden days the solution would be a nice bit of inflation pity our German friends are so terrified of the concept.

Well, I think the flashbacks might be too terrifying a prospect.

SBWife

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well yes and no. The day the ECB lowers interest rates, the same day AIB raises them.

What are you on about? The ECB hasn't touched interest rates since last July.

And what does INM have to do with distressed home owners?

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well yes and no. The day the ECB lowers interest rates, the same day AIB raises them.

When did this happen? Did I miss something?

At the same time debt write offs are alive and well. I am trying to find it online, but I saw a news announcement while waiting in a queue that Independent media got 140 million written off its debt.

There seems to be nothing in that article saying that Independent media got 140 million 'written off'. It's decreased its debt, but that doesn't mean it's a no-strings-attached 'write off'.

I think there's a bit of confusion in what a write off is here. Outside of unsecured debts in bankruptcy, there are very few cases where there is not a price to pay - typically the debtor will lose equity or something similar for the write-down.

There appears to be a bit of denial, fuelled by the myth that the banks paid no price, about that.

Well duh it's the ability to pay the mortgage that is the problem, but current policy is inhibiting that ability, even if you do have job. And their draconian bankrupt laws are ridiculous. Why would you NOT go to the UK? Why would you go through 12 years of penury all for the privaledge of living in Ireland?

I agree. But this is down to how bankruptcy laws are drawn up in different jurisdictions; there has to be a consequence to bankruptcy, otherwise everyone would go bankrupt whenever they ran up a bill and different countries deal with this in different ways - Ireland being one of the more hawkish countries.