Government to pay mortgage arrears *Mod Note in Opening Post*

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

all I read here is " I haven't got something" , so you " shouldn't get it either . Theres a name for that.

WHat you are suggesting is that " you" should now get to profit on the backs of the distress of others, theres a name for that too ( hint its in German)

The landlords of the 17th and 18 century had exactly the same argument as you

Perhaps semantically you might produce the idea that "Not having to pay extra to buy a home or rent a home due to the follies of others" as being a 'profit', but I don't think that's a very considered argument.

Spanish Eyes

I haven't had the time to read the full thread, so apologies if this has already been mentioned.. I don't know too much about all this, except to say I am totally miffed that I was prudent and cautious.

Surely the State will take a share in the property they (we) are covering the mortgage for?

Surely there are far more taxpayers/voters out there who are actually paying back their borrowings, or did not over borrow in the first place. AND they are paying for this "solution" too.

Therefore this cannot be an election ploy, unless the Government are totally barking mad. But it will backfire.

Imagine. I am lost for words.

johnp001

Gerry T wrote: »

You seem to suggest that people have a given right to own a property. They don't.
I would be in favour of banks being forced to agree a longer term to allow people to pay their Mtg back. Or let the Govt take a percentage share of the property value based on how much the Govt would subsidise the Mtg. But just giving money makes no sense.

It's like someone going out and buying a 7 series BMW and not being able to pay the loan repayments...should the Govt pay the balance of the loan ? by your logic they should.

I would be interested to know if there is impartial evidence of banks not being willing to agree to reasonable requests to restructure. There is plenty of bluster about their recalcitrance from the usual suspects in this but most of what I have heard is anecdotal at best.
The latest Central Bank statistics show a high proportion of restructures falling quickly back into arrears which suggests that the banks are offering to deal with borrowers who engage with them if they think there is a chance that the loan can be made to perform and erring on the side of being too optimistic.

Is there another set of statistics that show banks refusing to co-operate with borrowers, and if so what is their motivation for this (other than in cases where repayment is judged impossible and repossession is inevitable)?

BoatMad

The Insolvency Agency released figures today that suggested that 3 out of 4 insolvency deals were accepted by the banks, with PTSB and Start accepted about 2 in 4.

However only a very small proportion of distress cases are engaging with the insolvency service, partly because its new and partly because because of the issues around its establishment.

It also stated that in its data , its suggest that banks on average lost 100,000 more by pursuing bankruptcy judgements rather then engaging with the Insolvency plan.

Personally I think the way forward is to to force the banks into the insolvency service and to remove their veto. I actually don't see any need for the Gov to directly support borrowers in distress because we the taxpayers have already provided banks with the capital to accommodate such losses.


repossessions are only now becoming an issue , because banks can suddenly see they can realise the value of their loan, on the rising price of the house, thereby not only keeping the tax payers investment, but also getting the loan repaid in full. its called getting your cake and eating it.

Gerry T

johnp001 wrote: »

I would be interested to know if there is impartial evidence of banks not being willing to agree to reasonable requests to restructure. There is plenty of bluster about their recalcitrance from the usual suspects in this but most of what I have heard is anecdotal at best.
The latest Central Bank statistics show a high proportion of restructures falling quickly back into arrears which suggests that the banks are offering to deal with borrowers who engage with them if they think there is a chance that the loan can be made to perform and erring on the side of being too optimistic.

Is there another set of statistics that show banks refusing to co-operate with borrowers, and if so what is their motivation for this (other than in cases where repayment is judged impossible and repossession is inevitable)?

If the bank engaged in a meaningfull restructure then people wouldn't fall a second time. I can only speak of one friend, he's 52 and the bank refuses to restructure. He's in positive equity and my only guess is they want their money now, not over the next 15 years

The_Morrigan

Locked Again pending Review.

The_Morrigan

Right Thread Re-Opened

Boatmad do not post in this thread again, the majority of the deleted & snipped posts are either yours or quoting you.

Uncle Ben

I heard an interesting debate on Matt Cooper this evening whilst travelling home. At present in Dublin there are 318 homeless families living in hotel rooms at a cost to the taxpayer of €5000 per month per family.

Next month another 50 or 60 families are expected to join this list. These people are not being evicted from their own private homes. They are being made homeless because of the cap on rent supplement by the Dept of SW to their landlords.
When the house repossessions begin in earnest with the ISI stating almost 38000 at risk and a further 20000 over 2 years in arrears it is going to be very costly for the government to resolve this issue one way or another.

keane2097

I'd be 100x happier paying for people's rent supplement than paying their mortgages personally.

Uncle Ben

keane2097 wrote: »

I'd be 100x happier paying for people's rent supplement than paying their mortgages personally.

I'd rather pay for the best value. Regardless however the taxpayer will pay. Whether it's 5000 per month for a hotel room or 300 per week in a mortgage payment.

Gerry T

Uncle Ben wrote: »

I heard an interesting debate on Matt Cooper this evening whilst travelling home. At present in Dublin there are 318 homeless families living in hotel rooms at a cost to the taxpayer of €5000 per month per family.

Next month another 50 or 60 families are expected to join this list. These people are not being evicted from their own private homes. They are being made homeless because of the cap on rent supplement by the Dept of SW to their landlords.
When the house repossessions begin in earnest with the ISI stating almost 38000 at risk and a further 20000 over 2 years in arrears it is going to be very costly for the government to resolve this issue one way or another.

If I lost my home I think I would find another, but that would probably be renting not buying. Also downscaling and moving area. I honestly wouldn't be looking for someone to provide me a house.
I get the point your making and its just nuts the govt are paying that amout of money. You can get the clarion in liffey valley for 60e a night for 2. A family of 4 for a month would be 3720e. I'm sure if you spoke to the hotel and booking 365 days you would easily get a 10 to 20% discount or a total of 3000e a month, why are the govt paying 5000, there must be some reason and detail missing.
some people do need housing others want housing. There has to be a means of seperating the need from the want.

Uncle Ben

Gerry T wrote: »

If I lost my home I think I would find another, but that would probably be renting not buying. Also downscaling and moving area. I honestly wouldn't be looking for someone to provide me a house.
I get the point your making and its just nuts the govt are paying that amout of money. You can get the clarion in liffey valley for 60e a night for 2. A family of 4 for a month would be 3720e. I'm sure if you spoke to the hotel and booking 365 days you would easily get a 10 to 20% discount or a total of 3000e a month, why are the govt paying 5000, there must be some reason and detail missing.
some people do need housing others want housing. There has to be a means of seperating the need from the want.

From what I heard they're paying the 5000 because that's the asking price apparently and on the weekend the people are fecked out to stay in the Focus Shelters because the hotels have their 'normal type of guests '.
It was also mentioned that Dublin City Council I believe wanted to spend 4.2million doing up 60 plus flats in O Devanry Gardens comple, approximately 70k per flat.
It would appear that now suddenly in election year a homeless or housing crisis is looming despite many commentators for the last number of years predicting same. Nothing now for the government to do but throw money at the problem.

Villa05

Uncle Ben wrote:

I'd rather pay for the best value. Regardless however the taxpayer will pay. Whether it's 5000 per month for a hotel room or 300 per week in a mortgage payment.

Many of these mortgages are way behind in payments and in any other normal country would be repossessed. That is without question.

There is a complete lack of supply of council housing. If the government are to pay the mortgage. Let the state be the owner of these properties
Solve the council housing issue and keeping people in there homes (within reason of course, no mansions)

Plus these mortgages are highly distressed, they should be purchased at way below mortgage value. 40 cents on the Euro. Something similar to NAMA.
State gets housing at a fraction of there build cost and spread all over the country not in one big estate which caused issues before.

Uncle Ben

Villa05 wrote: »

Many of these mortgages are way behind in payments and in any other normal country would be repossessed. That is without question.

There is a complete lack of supply of council housing. If the government are to pay the mortgage. Let the state be the owner of these properties
Solve the council housing issue and keeping people in there homes (within reason of course, no mansions)

Plus these mortgages are highly distressed, they should be purchased at way below mortgage value. 40 cents on the Euro. Something similar to NAMA.
State gets housing at a fraction of there build cost and spread all over the country not in one big estate which caused issues before.

You've echoed every one of my points precisely.

johnp001

BoatMad wrote: »

The Insolvency Agency released figures today that suggested that 3 out of 4 insolvency deals were accepted by the banks, with PTSB and Start accepted about 2 in 4.

I think the figures referred to above are those from today's press release from Insolvency Service of Ireland at:
http://www.isi.gov.ie/en/ISI/Pages/2015_Q1_Statistics
and the statistical report linked in the above.

BoatMad wrote: »

However only a very small proportion of distress cases are engaging with the insolvency service, partly because its new and partly because because of the issues around its establishment.

It also stated that in its data , its suggest that banks on average lost 100,000 more by pursuing bankruptcy judgements rather then engaging with the Insolvency plan.

Personally I think the way forward is to to force the banks into the insolvency service and to remove their veto. I actually don't see any need for the Gov to directly support borrowers in distress because we the taxpayers have already provided banks with the capital to accommodate such losses.


repossessions are only now becoming an issue , because banks can suddenly see they can realise the value of their loan, on the rising price of the house, thereby not only keeping the tax payers investment, but also getting the loan repaid in full. its called getting your cake and eating it.

Cliff Taylor's IT article mentions that the removal of banks' veto is not being considered due to constitutional issues.

The ISI figures seem very encouraging and positive. More borrowers are engaging with lenders and a high proportion are in a position to do deals.
In some cases the debts are not recoverable to the same extent so deals are not feasible in all cases.
If banks are losing 100,000 per time when bankruptcy is chosen over insolvency arrangement then I don't see any need to further "force" them to deal. They seem to already have a strong financial incentive to do so and to be doing so.
Seamus Coffey's snapshot analysis of Cork repossession hearing shows a very high level of non-engagement from borrowers.

hopgog

Villa05 wrote: »

Many of these mortgages are way behind in payments and in any other normal country would be repossessed. That is without question.

There is a complete lack of supply of council housing. If the government are to pay the mortgage. Let the state be the owner of these properties
Solve the council housing issue and keeping people in there homes (within reason of course, no mansions)

Plus these mortgages are highly distressed, they should be purchased at way below mortgage value. 40 cents on the Euro. Something similar to NAMA.
State gets housing at a fraction of there build cost and spread all over the country not in one big estate which caused issues before.

That's pretty much the idea for the mortgage to rent scheme but most banks never let people progress to it.

hopgog

johnp001 wrote: »

Seamus Coffey's snapshot analysis of Cork repossession hearing shows a very high level of non-engagement from borrowers.

That snapshot only 1/4 where ppr

Villa05

hopgog wrote:

That's pretty much the idea for the mortgage to rent scheme but most banks never let people progress to it.

The banks had there chance to resolve this and have failed miserably. Let's take the decision making away from them and pass to there major shareholder.
Is there any reason this can't be done

johnp001

Villa05 wrote: »

The banks had there chance to resolve this and have failed miserably. Let's take the decision making away from them and pass to there major shareholder.
Is there any reason this can't be done

A constitutional reason, according to: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/government-battles-for-solution-to-mortgage-arrears-crisis-as-election-looms-1.2170310

Uncle Ben

johnp001 wrote: »

A constitutional reason, according to: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/government-battles-for-solution-to-mortgage-arrears-crisis-as-election-looms-1.2170310

Amazing this Constitution. We didn't need it when FF were signing the Bank Guarantee and FG can't lower rentals because of it. You'd wonder who this Constitution serves.

aido79

jay0109 wrote: »

Bank shareholders were wiped out in the blink of an eye. Many investors were old folk who'd (stupidly) put their pension pots into what they thought were blue chip investments.
They didn't get bailed out - didn't see a David Hall type set up an organisation to look for the to get refunds. Or too many posters on internet forums shouting their behalf.

You realise that a lot of the time there is a very thin line between investing and gambling? Do you think every shareholder should get their money back if the company they have invested in goes broke?

Most people also don't seem to realise that if the government were to have let the banks fail then everyone who had money in the banks(savings not shares) would have lost that money. This is part of the reason the government opted to bailout the banks.

quadrifoglio verde

aido79 wrote: »

You realise that a lot of the time there is a very thin line between investing and gambling? Do you think every shareholder should get their money back if the company they have invested in goes broke?

Most people also don't seem to realise that if the government were to have let the banks fail then everyone who had money in the banks(savings not shares) would have lost that money. This is part of the reason the government opted to bailout the banks.

Not necessarily. Deposits to a certain level were covered.
They could have increased the deposit amount covered to an even higher level.
However they decided to cover all deposits and debts, but had no choice because if they wanted to cover all deposits, they had to do something on the debts side.
Whatever about covering a certain amount of deposits, covering all of them was madness.

johnp001

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Not necessarily. Deposits to a certain level were covered.
They could have increased the deposit amount covered to an even higher level.
However they decided to cover all deposits and debts, but had no choice because if they wanted to cover all deposits, they had to do something on the debts side.
Whatever about covering a certain amount of deposits, covering all of them was madness.

The case was that deposits (>20k/person) could not be effectively guaranteed without guarantee of senior bondholders. Senior bondholder guarantee also made sense to some degree in terms of future access to international money.
It was not made clear at the banking enquiry why subordinated debt was also guaranteed. This appears to have been a massively costly mistake at best.
Noonan addressed this in the Dail over 4 years ago with Dick Roche:
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2010/12/15/unrevised1.pdf
e.g. page 325 contains part of the conversation relevant to the above.

GalwayMagpie

Laura.R.G.N wrote: »

Clever idea by someone on the pin.

The Irish Moral Hazard Organisation (IMHO)
Can't post links so here it is broken up...

www. irishmoralhazardorganisation. com

The he Irish Moral Hazard Organisation (IMHO) just got a mention on the Irish Times. http://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/ciar%C3%A1n-hancock-permanent-tsb-basking-in-positive-light-1.2175905#.VS4LK55vdcU <Mod Snip>

jay0109

hopgog wrote: »

That snapshot only 1/4 where ppr

Not exactly true. Only 1/4 were identified clearly as BTL's, 1/4 as PPR's and the rest were 'vacant' or blank.

jay0109

aido79 wrote: »

Do you think every shareholder should get their money back if the company they have invested in goes broke?

Of course I don't...I was merely rebutting the oft used argument that the Banks got bailed out and everyone invested with them was a winner

bluesteel

GalwayMagpie wrote: »

The he Irish Moral Hazard Organisation (IMHO) just got a mention on the Irish Times. http://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/ciar%C3%A1n-hancock-permanent-tsb-basking-in-positive-light-1.2175905#.VS4LK55vdcU http://irishmoralhazardorganisation.com/

interesting comment at the bottom

I wonder if it's a Limited Company like David "Casino" Hall's outfit? Or will is allow ordinary people to join and have a say on policy matters? It's a joke that a closed company is allowed to don the mantle of the INO/INTO and pretend to be a representative body.

I'm a Mortgage Holder and have repeatedly asked to join the so called "Irish Mortgage Holders organisation" but have been rebuffed - why is that, and why won't any journalist highlight it instead of quoting big mouth Hall at every turn

Is this true about David Hall's organisation. I assumed you could join if you were in distress?

does anyone know anymore about this new IMHO.

jay0109

bluesteel wrote: »

interesting comment at the bottom


Is this true about David Hall's organisation. I assumed you could join if you were in distress?

does anyone know anymore about this new IMHO.

I think that the comment referred to the fact that if your a regular mortgage holder not in trouble, then you can't really join' Hall's outfit. So the title IMHO is misleading

The new 'IMHO' mentioned is something that started off on the PropertyPin in the past few days. It's against the payment of people's mortgages while allowing them to continue to live in the house and retain ownership to same.
At the moment it's just an online letter looking for signatures before it gets sent to relevant decision makers.

bluesteel

jay0109 wrote: »

I think that the comment referred to the fact that if your a regular mortgage holder not in trouble, then you can't really join' Hall's outfit. So the title IMHO is misleading

but it seems that the original IMHO is a limited company - unlike the INTO (Teachers' Organisation) you can't join the organisation under any circumstances - even if you are in distress. Misleading isn't the word - it's a completely inaccurate description (I can't use the word I'd like)

bluesteel

<Mod Snip>

I posted a poll n this in After Hours - to see what the broader population thinks...