Positive Equity housing being repossesed

Potatoeman

Eldarion wrote: »

Skyrocketing is a bit strong. House prices are rising for very known reasons, restricted supply versus growing demand.

Factors restricting supply:

• Poor city and zonal planning
  
• NAMA
  
• Banks NOT lending to the construction sector
  
• Large cohort of people "stuck" in their houses unwilling to sell due to negative equity
  
• Older generation/empty nesters unwilling to sell the family home

Factors contributing to demand

• Banks loosening risk tolerance for mortgages gradually
  
• Government and bank incentives backing higher risk FTBers (95%+ mortgages, paying Stamp Duty)
  
• Large cohort of cash buyers currently in the market

Renting is unstable and not really suitable as a long term plan for most. People can only stay out of the market so long if they want to buy too.

Eldarion

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Would you not call double digit growth skyrocketing? Because I would.

A lot of factors you listed are subject to change.

Additional factors subject to change are:

• International Economic Downturn
• ECB Interest Rate Rises
• Increased budget austerity reducing income

Vested interests are furiously working for house price increases and will try and battle these changes, but in a small open economy like ours they can't control everything.

Only double digit is the basket case that is SCD and we're no longer seeing double digit rises even there. They're on the increase but they're not skyrocketing. Arguing semantics over the word skyrocketing here so I'll agree if you'd like haha.

ECB rates are not going up for the foreseeable future so I don't think this will factor for a number of years. The other factors I agree will cause a downward affect on demand but will nowhere near offset the restriction of supply we're seeing.

GavMan wrote: »

What are you talking about? No one is even suggesting that...

Yeah that was one of the worst straw man attempts I've ever seen.

The current increase in house prices is no doubt double digit in some areas but the actual quantity of houses being sold is still quite small. In 2015 when the investors have invested and the CGT exemption is finished we'll see things settle again. Another tough budget and no real improvement in employment levels coupled with minimal economic growth doesn't suggest rising house prices will continue, no harm in that either to be fair.

MouseTail

Augeo wrote: »

The current increase in house prices is no doubt double digit in some areas but the actual quantity of houses being sold is still quite small. In 2015 when the investors have invested and the CGT exemption is finished we'll see things settle again. Another tough budget and no real improvement in employment levels coupled with minimal economic growth doesn't suggest rising house prices will continue, no harm in that either to be fair.

There is improvement in employment levels. Mostly (obviously) where prices are rising, up 25,800 year on year in Dublin for example. Unemployment is also falling, although those figures are troublesome.
Economic growth predicted as twice the EU average over the next few years by Moody's. http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1027962.shtml

I don't like double digit housing growth, I wish we could have the recovery without it, but it doesnt look like that will happen in the short term at least.

Bravobabe

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Personally I don't give a toss if a property is in positive or negative equity. If you can't/aren't paying the mortgage, you should be put out, the property sold on, and the difference (if any) to be paid by you - the original owner. It should also go on your credit record as a judgement against you - just as it would with any other debt you default on.

This idea that people should be allowed stay in property they can't afford cause:

- we were "bullied"/"pressured" into it
- it's our family home
- the banks/developers/bondholders got THEIR bailout

.. is absolute nonsense. If I can't/don't pay my rent this month, do you think my landlord will be slow to issue an eviction notice? If the rent goes up and I can't pay it, do you think I can just stay there anyway? No, I'll have to move on to somewhere I CAN afford... it's really that simple!

This ridiculous idea that property ownership is a "right" and a "protected" status in this country needs to end. No-one is "entitled" to own a house/apartment. If you can sustainably afford it then by all means work away, but I am sick to death of this crying and whinging by those who expect "someone else" to pay their debts for them, and having my own bills increased as a result.

To borrow a similar phrase, Pay up or GTFO!

So, you think that its correct or at least okay for:
the State/Taxpayer to bail out our Banks, then the Banks repossess houses and evict families, who then have to be re-housed by the State/Taxpayer. So the State/Taxpayer get a double hit (re-finance the Banks and re-house unfortunate families)
Surely and simply, it would have been wiser for the State to take the mortgage housing stock as collateral on the bail-out money. If/when people have financial issues, they could be given a 1 or 2 year moratorium on mortgage repayments (affordable payments or rent payments). By agreement or after the defined period the State take ownership of the house.

All this while Banking CEO's and directors are getting huge bonuses, fees and salaries for running Businesses which have lost "billions".

The obvious solution is as always SCREW THE SMALL PERSON
If your rich and mix in the right circles - your only guilty if your caught and then you will only get a slap on the wrist, no that would be too harsh, community service would be better.

I'm speaking from personal experience here - trying to deal with a Bank for the last 3 years. House value has plummeted to 30% of its 2008 value and under 50% of its construction cost. With a lot of effort managed to pay 63 of 69 monthly payments at a 5+% interest rate. Have virtually begged them to do a review/reconstruction, they have never replied to any of my letters. However I got a letter last week saying they have now appointed a receiver.
Only one person going to make money on it now - The receiver.
Of course, a new purchaser will probably get a good bargain.

But that's the way they operate, if they had done a deal to let me sell the house and give the proceeds, I can guarantee an extra 15K - 20K in proceeds

Bravobabe

lolosaur wrote: »

Debt should be long term, like the countries debt repayment. extend it over 40 or 50 years. still pay back what you owe. never be allowed to simply walk away.

This just apply to ordinary Joe Soaps - or would it apply to everyone?
Because many large businessmen are having their loans written off!

Seems to me, that middle income earners are the ones being screwed every which way.
Pay cuts, increased taxes, less benefits, don't qualify for grants/medical cards etc.

gaius c

stevedublin wrote: »

People have money on deposit in banks by choice.
How are depositor's wealth being used against them?

Give me your money or else you can't have a place to live.
It's working very effectively to extract cash out of renters and wannabe FTB's and plug the holes on bank balance sheets. On the other hand, if you have a mortgage, not paying it is not such a big deal. You can stay there for years before anything happens to you.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Although everything you said makes absolute sense, it's political suicide to implement any legislation based upon it so will never happen.

We will more than likely have a drip feed of repossessions, split mortgages and write-offs, the latter two forming the bulk of resolutions to non-performing mortgages.

Having said that I have a sneaking suspicion the that the current madness will have a shuddering halt and not a soft landing, as we can see that the market is so manipulated that sharp corrections are inevitable.

It may take 2 years or it may take 5, but it will happen.

I know a labour party canvasser and she said that what they really got it in the neck about on doorsteps in the recent elections was the way rents are increasing for the people least able to afford them and she admitted that these under 30's are the ones who are drifting towards the shinners. It was a bit of a shock to her organisation because like most Irish political organisations, they are heavily geared towards attracting the votes of older people and assumed that younger people will simply vote the same way as their parents.
To make matters worse, the old folks gave them stink about it too because their little Johnnies & Marys are the ones struggling to pay for accom.

And that's before you consider MNC's viewing a resumption of our rising cost base with considerable alarm.

El_Dangeroso

gaius c wrote: »

I know a labour party canvasser and she said that what they really got it in the neck about on doorsteps in the recent elections was the way rents are increasing for the people least able to afford them and she admitted that these under 30's are the ones who are drifting towards the shinners. It was a bit of a shock to her organisation because like most Irish political organisations, they are heavily geared towards attracting the votes of older people and assumed that younger people will simply vote the same way as their parents.
To make matters worse, the old folks gave them stink about it too because their little Johnnies & Marys are the ones struggling to pay for accom.

And that's before you consider MNC's viewing a resumption of our rising cost base with considerable alarm.

I hope you're right, hope being the operative word.

Eldarion

Bravobabe wrote: »

So, you think that its correct or at least okay for:
the State/Taxpayer to bail out our Banks, then the Banks repossess houses and evict families, who then have to be re-housed by the State/Taxpayer. So the State/Taxpayer get a double hit (re-finance the Banks and re-house unfortunate families)
Surely and simply, it would have been wiser for the State to take the mortgage housing stock as collateral on the bail-out money. If/when people have financial issues, they could be given a 1 or 2 year moratorium on mortgage repayments (affordable payments or rent payments). By agreement or after the defined period the State take ownership of the house.

All this while Banking CEO's and directors are getting huge bonuses, fees and salaries for running Businesses which have lost "billions".

The obvious solution is as always SCREW THE SMALL PERSON
If your rich and mix in the right circles - your only guilty if your caught and then you will only get a slap on the wrist, no that would be too harsh, community service would be better.

I'm speaking from personal experience here - trying to deal with a Bank for the last 3 years. House value has plummeted to 30% of its 2008 value and under 50% of its construction cost. With a lot of effort managed to pay 63 of 69 monthly payments at a 5+% interest rate. Have virtually begged them to do a review/reconstruction, they have never replied to any of my letters. However I got a letter last week saying they have now appointed a receiver.
Only one person going to make money on it now - The receiver.
Of course, a new purchaser will probably get a good bargain.

But that's the way they operate, if they had done a deal to let me sell the house and give the proceeds, I can guarantee an extra 15K - 20K in proceeds

No one forced you to leverage yourself up to your eye balls with high interest credit to invest in the property market. If you can't afford the repayments you are not holding up your end of the agreement that you signed with the bank. The bank is perfectly entitled to exercise its rights in this case.

Would you give a 2 year moratorium to one of your tenants if they got into financial difficulty? How many of those 63 monthly repayments would you have made had you had €0 rent received for 2 years?

MouseTail

gaius c wrote: »

It was a bit of a shock to her organisation because like most Irish political organisations, they are heavily geared towards attracting the votes of older people and assumed that younger people will simply vote the same way as their parents.

There is no political party who assume young people vote the same way as their parents.