New Beginning?? Long term resolution for unwanted house.

ihavethepower

D3PO wrote: »

in some cases yes. But what is being proposed would lead to everybody doing it. Besides which those that have done it have not had any write downs that im aware of. Ive not seen anecodotal evidence from anybody that it has happened either

Yes, fair enough, I was thinking NAMA and investment properties but not domestic situation. I think Beardyman is stuck between both though.

strongback

D3PO wrote: »

reread what you said. You said the bank take 50% of the hit. The hit is the loss. Therefore they take 100% of the hit you fail to understand this.

You have this ridiculous utopian idea that the banks have been given all the money the need to take all these "50% hits :rolleyes:" you fail to comprehend the fall out of doing so and the slew of defaults this would bring about as everybody in Negative equity would automatically strategically default as they would be stupid not to.

The financial system would collapse the banks would go insolvent the country would turn into a basketcase. You need to understand economics before you start arguing what you are trying to.

You're talking semantics and rattling on about a nothing point of your own creation. I stated my 3 points further up the thread.

You think people in negative equity are not considering insolvency? If the debt is big enough people will get out from under it, I'm not condoning that by the way.


I also think you are seriously underestimating the financial measures the government has put in place to deal with the significant numbers of people who will take the insolvency option.

In my own group of friends in their mid 30's to early 40's at least 25% of them have told me they are seriously considering insolvency. Two friends are looking at rental houses around Newry at the moment. Several former clients of companies I have worked for have come through insolvency, most of them owed 100's of millions. Insolvency is a reality.

Ray Palmer

strongback wrote: »

50% of the mortgage is recovered it what I am saying. They do not lose 100% of the mortgage value. Another with reading comprehension problems I guess.

To repeat myself the banks do not take the big hit the tax payer has largely covered these bad mortgages.

In the example I gave the loss would be 50k that is 50k of the 100k principle. The property lost a value of 50k. The bank would loose this but the purchaser would lose . 50% drop on property = 50k =100% of the loss. In a 50/50 split the purchaser still owes the bank 25k. That is on the actual lose

But the bank has a projected income of 20k(note this is very low it would be much higher). The bank is losing this too so the bank is down 70k (20k+50k). in a 50/50 split that means the purchaser owes 35k.

Now you might claim you mean something when you say 50/50 but that is your mistake. It doesn't have a different meaning. You accuse others of not comprehending but quite transparent that the issue lies with you.

The government did not write down every possible mortgage in the bail out. It didn't happen and saying it did won't change it. The banks profitability is based on figures like I have shown. The return on the mortgages were used. The banks don't have piles of cash to write off loans. The bailout had very little to do with the Irish property market it is more of the cause of it crashing.

You really haven't given any indication you understand what you are talking about.

strongback

Ray Palmer wrote: »

In the example I gave the loss would be 50k that is 50k of the 100k principle. The property lost a value of 50k. The bank would loose this but the purchaser would lose . 50% drop on property = 50k =100% of the loss. In a 50/50 split the purchaser still owes the bank 25k. That is on the actual lose

But the bank has a projected income of 20k(note this is very low it would be much higher). The bank is losing this too so the bank is down 70k (20k+50k). in a 50/50 split that means the purchaser owes 35k.

Now you might claim you mean something when you say 50/50 but that is your mistake. It doesn't have a different meaning. You accuse others of not comprehending but quite transparent that the issue lies with you.

The government did not write down every possible mortgage in the bail out. It didn't happen and saying it did won't change it. The banks profitability is based on figures like I have shown. The return on the mortgages were used. The banks don't have piles of cash to write off loans. The bailout had very little to do with the Irish property market it is more of the cause of it crashing.

You really haven't given any indication you understand what you are talking about.

More strawman claptrap. Why bring up a nothing mickey mouse point about the interpretation of percentages. The discussion is on a much broader higher level.

I also know how to do maths, my job is fundamentally maths, calculus mainly.


I never said the government wrote down every mortgage. The banks have a minimum value they must retrieve on every mortgage. People are negotiating around these values which are less that the original mortgage value. There is money in the pot for defaults, a blind man could interpret that.

Considering the first 10 names into NAMA must have owed approximately €10 billion or more between them I don't see how the bailout was nothing to do with property. The German funds filled there boots with Irish bank shares and the property portfolios they contained.


You don't give any indication that you are anything other than a political hack trying to muddy the waters. I made 3 very simple points and I stand by them.

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

You think people in negative equity are not considering insolvency? If the debt is big enough people will get out from under it, I'm not condoning that by the way.

You don't understand the insolvency process that's your problem. You cannot decide to go insolvent unless you are insolvent. You cant just go feck it in in NE im going bankrupt.

There is a defined process, if you are not insolvent you cannot become bankrupt. The banks or your other creditors can also stop you claiming bankrupty if they feel you are not.

.

You fail to grasp the most basic principles of this case the OP is wont pay not cant pay. Wont pay have no ability to get out of their debts. That is the fact of the matter.

strongback

D3PO wrote: »

You fail to grasp the most basic principles of this case the OP is wont pay not cant pay. Wont pay have no ability to get out of their debts. That is the fact of the matter.

I was never talking about the OP. I stated that further up the thread. I responded initially to older people with low or no mortgages who were pontificating to people in negative equity.


And yes some people who can pay but don't want to pay will manufacture a default, that's just the way of the world. Lose your job, don't pay the mortgage, move to the UK and once the "centre of interest" is established the insolvency can go ahead. I'm not condoning that behaviour and would not do this myself but its a sure-fire bet some people with a lot of negative equity will be trying it.

ihavethepower

D3PO wrote: »

You fail to grasp the most basic principles of this case the OP is wont pay not cant pay. Wont pay have no ability to get out of their debts. That is the fact of the matter.

Is that it then?? The op wants discuss possible options, I don't think 'no you're not allowed' is what he is looking for, while it might be right, is it not better to explore other avenues that may lead to an unconventional solution??

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

I was never talking about the OP. I stated that further up the thread. I responded initially to older people with low or no mortgages who were pontificating to people in negative equity.

You made up that point though nobody said they were older with no mortgages you just assumed that ...

And yes some people who can pay but don't want to pay will manufacture a default, that's just the way of the world. Lose your job, don't pay the mortgage, move to the UK and once the "centre of interest" is established the insolvency can go ahead. I'm not condoning that behaviour and would not do this myself but its a sure-fire bet some people with a lot of negative equity will be trying it.

Potentially yes a person could manufacture a default that way. I think it would be a stupid thing to look to intentionally lose your job stop paying a mortgage and waste 18 months of your life hitting the reset button just to dodge neg equity.

I don't think its a sure fire bet many people will be trying it. Some yes but in the grand scheme of things it will be a very small proportion.

D3PO

ihavethepower wrote: »

Is that it then?? The op wants discuss possible options, I don't think 'no you're not allowed' is what he is looking for, while it might be right, is it not better to explore other avenues that may lead to an unconventional solution??

Yes but why would I or anybody else for that matter contribute to a discussion about him dodging his responsibilities at yours or my expense though.

um7y1h83ge06nx

This thread is hilarious.

I'm in negative equity like the OP and can pay my mortgage like the OP.

I would love sometimes to be able to walk away but I know I can't without some serious trickery.

If we could all walk away from our mortgages it would be akin to getting a refund on a lost bet from a bookmaker.

We could all very easily be blowing hot air here saying how we are paper millionaires as our houses are worth multiples of what we paid for them. Unfortunately the opposite happened and here we are. We just have to deal with it and hope prices eventually turn around.

ihavethepower

they will turn around, and we will all be millionaires...only it'll be in punts

ihavethepower

how about the op sues his ex wife, he said he felt under duress to buy her out of the house

strongback

D3PO wrote: »

I don't think its a sure fire bet many people will be trying it. Some yes but in the grand scheme of things it will be a very small proportion.

I have seen for myself in day to day conversations the split in opinion on mortgage debt, as I said previously. People will little or no debt become very agitated by the thoughts somebody might be getting away with a write down. We live in me fein Ireland after all.

In terms of numbers most will be genuine cases like some of my friends who have unsustainable debt they cannot ever hope to repay. It's the UK for them and they are in the process of making the move. There are more people in this situation than people care to admit, its hitting 100,000 mortgages in arrears of 3 months or more.

This problem isn't going to go away by people sitting on their high horse telling those on their knees "a debt is a debt is a debt".

Bullseye1

Why should should someone who cannot pay worry about what others think, especially the self righteous crowd who spout out "pay up and shut up, I'm not taking on your debt". Where were these self righteous people when FFail guaranteed banks and put private debt on the tax payer. These people would not give a flying f... If the banks were not under the ownership of the tax payer. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

strongback

Daniel Yellow Airplane wrote: »

This thread is hilarious.

I'm in negative equity like the OP and can pay my mortgage like the OP.

I would love sometimes to be able to walk away but I know I can't without some serious trickery.

If we could all walk away from our mortgages it would be akin to getting a refund on a lost bet from a bookmaker.

We could all very easily be blowing hot air here saying how we are paper millionaires as our houses are worth multiples of what we paid for them. Unfortunately the opposite happened and here we are. We just have to deal with it and hope prices eventually turn around.

Not really the same though is it?...........unless you put your house on a nag.

gaius c

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Why should should someone who cannot pay worry about what others think, especially the self righteous crowd who spout out "pay up and shut up, I'm not taking on your debt". Where were these self righteous people when FFail guaranteed banks and put private debt on the tax payer. These people would not give a flying f... If the banks were not under the ownership of the tax payer. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

The people against assuming the private debt of individuals were in favour of assuming the private debt of banks?

Impressive strawman that.

mrmitty

D3PO wrote: »

No. I've said it before I will say it again. We don't do non recourse mortgages in this country (if you don't know what that is google it). You borrow the money your responsible.

In order for a contract to be legal, both parties need to be informed and there needs to be a meeting of the minds and transpariency IMO .
Something which was/is impossible in Ireland at present.
The cute hoor bankers had an insider advantage.
Screw them.

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh who are the banks ?
Please answer that.

If you don't know and are having trouble here is a hint.

The Irish indigenous banks are the Irish taxpayers who own them and have guaranteed them.
Thus the banks are us.

I know well who owns the banks, that fact is irrevelant however.
With every investment comes risk and that is equally true for the banks.
Even in gombeen Ireland.

Bullseye1

gaius c wrote: »

The people against assuming the private debt of individuals were in favour of assuming the private debt of banks?

Impressive strawman that.

Sigh. The country is lost.

D3PO

strongback wrote: »

I have seen for myself in day to day conversations the split in opinion on mortgage debt, as I said previously. People will little or no debt become very agitated by the thoughts somebody might be getting away with a write down. We live in me fein Ireland after all.

In terms of numbers most will be genuine cases like some of my friends who have unsustainable debt they cannot ever hope to repay. It's the UK for them and they are in the process of making the move. There are more people in this situation than people care to admit, its hitting 100,000 mortgages in arrears of 3 months or more.

This problem isn't going to go away by people sitting on their high horse telling those on their knees "a debt is a debt is a debt".

I agree with you but your veering way off the original topic of this thread. If a debt is unsustainable its unsustainable. We all chirp on about mortgage holders burying their heads in the sand, the banks cannot do this either. They either use MARP and work out a sustainable deal with these people and if that means some writedown then so be it, if it makes more financial sense for the bank to do this on individual cases they should. If its the best thing to manage their loan book then it would be stupid for anybody to argue against it, if not fair enough these people should go and force the banks hand to do a deal.

This is not what this thread was about or certainly started out about. The OP can pay and doesn't want to and wants a deal. Its not begrudgery or me feminism to wholeheartedly slam his perspective and expect him to pay for his financial decisions.

Ray Palmer

strongback wrote: »

More strawman claptrap. Why bring up a nothing mickey mouse point about the interpretation of percentages. The discussion is on a much broader higher level.

I also know how to do maths, my job is fundamentally maths, calculus mainly.


.

It isn't a straw man as it is an explanation of how it works I am not using it to refute any point. Comprehension seem to be an issue for you. You simply don't understand what you are saying. The point of percentages which you have failed to correctly use illustrate this.

strongback wrote: »

My points just to break them down into little itty bity bite sizes pieces are as follows:


1. Going insolvent is a good option for people with unsustainable debt.

2. Older people with little or no debt pontificating about mortgage debt being a set in stone commitment and write down talk being a disgrace are more than a little hard to listen to.

3. The government have bank debt under control and the country will not collapse if debt forgiveness becomes a reality for those that really can't pay..

1. If they are insolvent. Lots of examples of people who aren't and are trying to do the same.

2. As pointed out older people are actually in a lot of trouble. You have this wrong. You keep going on about people born in the 60s. I was born in the 70s and my friends aren't in trouble. One or two are but it is a minority. You have this belief about people of certain ages and again you are wrong

3. Debt forgiveness has not what you have advocated. You have suggested the banks take the entire loss. The falsehood that the banks can afford it is simply wrong. The bailout is not an excuse to write off as much debt as possible.

You seem to like to bandy about lots of insults and inferences about people commenting against you. Given that you have made several uses of phrases and words incorrectly you certainly are going to have difficulty being understood or understanding others.

djimi

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Why should should someone who cannot pay worry about what others think, especially the self righteous crowd who spout out "pay up and shut up, I'm not taking on your debt". Where were these self righteous people when FFail guaranteed banks and put private debt on the tax payer. These people would not give a flying f... If the banks were not under the ownership of the tax payer. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

If the banks werent under ownership of the tax payer then the tax payer would not be paying for the financial shortfalls of the banks, so why would you expect the tax payer to care how they are run or what they get up to? The reason people get upset about people defaulting on mortgages etc is because it does effect the tax payer; every mortgage that defaults is potentially more tax out of my wage packet at the end of the month. It might sound self righteous, but the reality is that everyone in the country is currently paying, regardless of whether they made the mistakes or not.

strongback

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It isn't a straw man as it is an explanation of how it works I am not using it to refute any point. Comprehension seem to be an issue for you. You simply don't understand what you are saying. The point of percentages which you have failed to correctly use illustrate this.



1. If they are insolvent. Lots of examples of people who aren't and are trying to do the same.

2. As pointed out older people are actually in a lot of trouble. You have this wrong. You keep going on about people born in the 60s. I was born in the 70s and my friends aren't in trouble. One or two are but it is a minority. You have this belief about people of certain ages and again you are wrong

3. Debt forgiveness has not what you have advocated. You have suggested the banks take the entire loss. The falsehood that the banks can afford it is simply wrong. The bailout is not an excuse to write off as much debt as possible.

You seem to like to bandy about lots of insults and inferences about people commenting against you. Given that you have made several uses of phrases and words incorrectly you certainly are going to have difficulty being understood or understanding others.

I don't agree with any of your points and I think you deliberately muddying the water. You're political.........it stands out a mile.

Bullseye1

djimi wrote: »

If the banks werent under ownership of the tax payer then the tax payer would not be paying for the financial shortfalls of the banks, so why would you expect the tax payer to care how they are run or what they get up to? The reason people get upset about people defaulting on mortgages etc is because it does effect the tax payer; every mortgage that defaults is potentially more tax out of my wage packet at the end of the month. It might sound self righteous, but the reality is that everyone in the country is currently paying, regardless of whether they made the mistakes or not.

As am I as a tax payer and someone paying my mortgage. I just haven't lost my soul and want to throw everyone in trouble under the bus.

strongback

djimi wrote: »

If the banks werent under ownership of the tax payer then the tax payer would not be paying for the financial shortfalls of the banks, so why would you expect the tax payer to care how they are run or what they get up to? The reason people get upset about people defaulting on mortgages etc is because it does effect the tax payer; every mortgage that defaults is potentially more tax out of my wage packet at the end of the month. It might sound self righteous, but the reality is that everyone in the country is currently paying, regardless of whether they made the mistakes or not.

Yes but society is about what's best for the vast majority. Some people were genuinely unlucky in their purchase mainly down to timing and the incredible levels of confidence that prevailed in the boom.


"There go I but for the grace of God" is a phrase that doesn't come into people thoughts much in Ireland. What if every person said to the parent of a very sick child 'Not my problem mate.....deal with it you're not getting any tax dollars out of me'.

This debate is purely driven by self interest. Don't be surprised when people look after themselves in return by going insolvent.

djimi

Bullseye1 wrote: »

As am I as a tax payer and someone paying my mortgage. I just haven't lost my soul and want to throw everyone in trouble under the bus.

I dont see why you have to have lost your soul in order to have the right to complain about paying for mistakes that you didnt make? Im not saying I dont have sympathy for people who are in a bad situation, but I very much do detest paying for someone who took out a €500k mortgage that they dont feel like paying back now (rather than who cannot pay it back).

Ray Palmer

strongback wrote: »

I don't agree with any of your points and I think you deliberately muddying the water. You're political.........it stands out a mile.

The thing is you don't have to agree with any of my points. They aren't all debatable as they are explanations for you as you don't understand.

Saying I am political and muddying waters doesn't mean anything if you can't point to anything.

Scortho

strongback wrote: »

Yes but society is about what's best for the vast majority. Some people were genuinely unlucky in their purchase mainly down to timing and the incredible levels of confidence that prevailed in the boom.


"There go I but for the grace of God" is a phrase that doesn't come into people thoughts much in Ireland. What if every person said to the parent of a very sick child 'Not my problem mate.....deal with it you're not getting any tax dollars out of me'.

This debate is purely driven by self interest. Don't be surprised when people look after themselves in return by going insolvent.

You keep harking on about people going insolvent. You have to remember though that you don't just wake up one morning and say I'm insolvent because I'm in neg equity.
You have to actually BE insolvent in order to do so. You have to be unable to meet liabilities as they fall due.
Earning 80 k and having 2k debt repayments doesn't make someone insolvent.
I have no problem with a person who is unable to meet their liabilities going bankrupt in Ireland or any other jurisdiction. There assets are repossessed and sold and they enter into bankruptcy. They get extra conditions put on them once leaving bankruptcy.

What I do have a problem with is when someone isn't insolvent (able to meet his liabilities as they fall due) looking for a debt write down because they bought at the wrong time. These people aren't in any sort of trouble and just want to have their cake (the house) and eat it (lower debt).

gaius c

strongback wrote: »

Yes but society is about what's best for the vast majority. Some people were genuinely unlucky in their purchase mainly down to timing and the incredible levels of confidence that prevailed in the boom.


"There go I but for the grace of God" is a phrase that doesn't come into people thoughts much in Ireland. What if every person said to the parent of a very sick child 'Not my problem mate.....deal with it you're not getting any tax dollars out of me'.

This debate is purely driven by self interest. Don't be surprised when people look after themselves in return by going insolvent.

100k households in arrears
2 million households in the country

So tell me, what is best for the vast majority?

strongback

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The thing is you don't have to agree with any of my points. They aren't all debatable as they are explanations for you as you don't understand.

Saying I am political and muddying waters doesn't mean anything if you can't point to anything.

Do you expect me to take that seriously? I have typed many words in this thread and I don't feel the need to regurgitate them.

Fine Gael is my guess......you lack the social conscience to be a lefty. Enda would be proud of you.

gaius c

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The thing is you don't have to agree with any of my points. They aren't all debatable as they are explanations for you as you don't understand.

Saying I am political and muddying waters doesn't mean anything if you can't point to anything.

Don't bother mate. He's responding to multiple points with trite one-liners now because he's cornered and has got nothing else. For instance, he refused to acknowledge me correcting his assertation that the older generation were "getting off scot free". All we're going to get now is dodging and rehashing of his already debunked points.