you could loose your home if you don't keep up payments on it

maryishere

bubblypop wrote: »

Well maybe those people should have known that they couldn't afford to pay it back

Maybe they should have, but if they did not, and if the bank knew that the repayments exceeded the borrowers ability to repay, should it have lent the money? Should rogue bankers have pushed through a 110% mortgage on properties sometimes even to people without a job, simply to get his end of month bonus and weekend trip to 5 star castle hotel?

Rezident

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I'm a mortgage holder, I'm amazed how many people (anecdotally) see the mortgage as not their problem if they can't pay it due to job loss, rising interest rates etc. It seems to be deeply ingrained culture here.

If you borrow money for something and can't afford to pay it back, then you've no right to keep it - this goes for a house, a car or anything else paid for in this manner.

Only in Ireland does this actually need to be spelt out for people.

maudgonner

maryishere wrote: »

Maybe they should have, but if they did not, and if the bank knew that the repayments exceeded the borrowers ability to repay, should it have lent the money? Should rogue bankers have pushed through a 110% mortgage on properties sometimes even to people without a job, simply to get his end of month bonus and weekend trip to 5 star castle hotel?

Can't both be wrong? I don't think there are too many people defending the banks' actions. But that absolutely doesn't absolve mortgage holders from their responsibilities, and they should be prepared to face the consequences.

maryishere

Time some of the rogue bankers took some pain as well then.

Jack Killian

Graham wrote: »

Imposing interest rated on banks is only likely to put off additional entrants to the banking market reducing future competition. If the banks are charging excessive interest rates, new entrants won't be long to enter the market to redress the balance.

No, new entrants will gouge us just as much as the existing shower.

How many "new entrants" have there been over the last 3 decades ? Where is the "competition" that you speak of ?

All I remember is Trustee Savings Bank merging to try to compete with the "big two", thereby decreasing competition, and some other cesspit called Anglo that wrecked the country, ironically aided and abetted by the said PTSB who now happily advertise as if they'd never engaged in dodgy transactions.

Jack Killian

maudgonner wrote: »

Can't both be wrong? I don't think there are too many people defending the banks' actions. But that absolutely doesn't absolve mortgage holders from their responsibilities, and they should be prepared to face the consequences.

This.

Both are wrong.

Unfortunately it is - as always - the ordinary Joe Soap that gets (rightly) punished while the bigger fish get away with it. And to add insult to injury while said Joe Soap's taxes prop the bank up.

end of the road

murphaph wrote: »

The likes of the posters on here who argue for debt forgiveness can't understand that this means higher interest rates for everyone else.

no, legislation would be brought in to ban banks who had to be bailed out from upping the rates.

bubblypop wrote: »

I was offered anything I wanted by the ebs, as much as I wanted!
Did I take it?
No, I went to the aib and borrowed what I could afford to pay back.

Don't give me the whole poor stoopid people didn't know what they were doing, they were climbing over each other to get as big a mortgage as they could, with no regard to their future.

they were a small minority. no the banks did all and sundry to insure people were given more money then they could afford. as i stated some people didn't get a choice, they wanted a certain amount but were told you will take more or nothing.

bubblypop wrote: »

Well maybe those people should have known that they couldn't afford to pay it back

maybe the bank shouldn't have given amounts they knew people couldn't afford

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

This thread is gas... and shows many have learned nothing from the last 8 years

The obsession that Irish people have with "getting on the property ladder" coupled with the inability to take responsibility for that choice if it goes wrong (but at the same time happily reap the rewards if it doesn't) is exactly why the economy crashed in the first place. To read some posts here you'd swear banks were dragging people off the street at gunpoint and making them sign mortgage applications (many of which were fudged of course to meet the already lax criteria).

Then you have the justification/superiority attitude regarding how renting is "dead money" and for losers, or a temporary stepping stone on the road to ownership (assuming that mammy and daddy won't put you up or gift you the deposit). This attitude of course carries through to the policy makers which is precisely why the rental sector is the mess it is, even apart from the current supply shortages.

It's this nonsense that has a situation where people who aren't making their mortgage payments are still in the house (which remember they do not own until the final payment has been made) while people who didn't buy in the "Good Times" have been left to pick up the tab AND pay again through higher rents and the uncertainty that always hangs over it, and are now unable to buy because there are so many still sitting on property they're not entitled to be in.

And just on that - no-one is ENTITLED to own property. If you can make and maintain the repayments then fair enough and work away.. but if not, and after a fair (but not indefinite) chance to get things in order again, the property should be repossessed and sold with the original holder left to settle any outstanding amounts... just like any other loan!

any outstanding amounts would have to be forgone by the bank should the house be repossessed and sold. considering they couldn't make the repayments in the first place they aren't going to be able to pay anything outstanding. the bank will get what the house is actually worth, it's enough for them. banks that were bailed out by the tax payer that is, any bank who wasn't can continue with business as usual

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Why do you think banks are being bailed out, eotr?

mickoneill31

end of the road wrote: »

they were a small minority. no the banks did all and sundry to insure people were given more money then they could afford. as i stated some people didn't get a choice, they wanted a certain amount but were told you will take more or nothing.

Wow, I didn't know that. I borrowed during the boom and I didn't experience that. So you're saying people went in saying they wanted to buy a house for €300K and the banks were saying no, you can't have that you will take more or nothing. Is there any evidence of this happening. Must be a news story in that if you do.

AudreyHepburn

It's beyond me why anyone would think it's ok to flat out refuse to pay back what you owe, whether you can afford it or not, and then expect be to able to keep the house/car/insert item here.

If you can no longer afford your repayments fine, but you can't stop paying. Surely you could go to your bank/lender and come up with a new agreement?

At the end of it's about Supply and Demand - yes the banks were offering scandalous amounts of money but they would not have done so had the ordinary punter not been demanding these amounts with stopping to think of the possible consequences.

No-one was ever forced at gunpoint to take on these huge loans, each person made the decision of their own free will and they need to take some responsibility for their own mistakes.

The sense of entitlement and all out refusal to accept any blame for anything in this country really baffles me sometimes!

valoren

The best rejoinder to anyone who says that rent is dead money is the following quote.
"Those who understand compound interest, earn it. Those who don't, pay it".

Take a modest mortgage of €200,000 over 30 years.
We'll assume a 7 year fixed interest at 3.99%
How much would the total repayment be?

€351,368.

And rent is dead money? You would be paying 151k in interest over the 25 years. About 6k a year.
The bank has essentially received a 75% return on it's investment. And most of that interest is paid early in the mortgage. Banks are businesses and a mortgage with you is an investment for them to earn a profit. No argument there. Mortgage interest is renting. It is the rent you pay for borrowing the bank's money to 'Buy' a house.

By all means get a mortgage but understanding compound interest and you will be very keen to pay over and above what you can afford as much as you can to save yourself a tonne of interest over the mortgage term.

Graham

valoren wrote: »

"Those who understand compound interest, earn it. Those who don't, pay it".

Rent doesn't earn interest for a tenant.

valoren wrote: »

Take a modest mortgage of €200,000 over 30 years.
We'll assume a 7 year fixed interest at 3.99%
How much would the total repayment be?

€351,368.

How much is the asset (house) worth at the end of that period?
In the same 30 year period as your example mortgage you could easily have paid €300,000 - €400,000 in rent.

Anyway, not really relevant to the thread so I'll stop.

valoren

Graham wrote: »

How much is the asset (house) worth at the end of that period?
In the same 30 year period as your example mortgage you could easily have paid €300,000 - €400,000 in rent.

Precisely. There's pro's and con's to renting versus buying. But to justify getting a mortgage on the basis that rent is dead money is very simplistic.

weldoninhio

end of the road wrote: »

they need to pay a punishment rate, IE double what we gave them to send out a strong message.

I know it's extremely doubtful that I'll get an answer to this as your posts rarely contain facts, but where exactly do you think banks make their money from?? If a bank has to pay punishment rates, who do you think will be hit with higher interest rates, late payment fees, higher admin fees to pay this??

Or are you of the belief that banks are just big buildings full of money??

RobertKK

I was passing by the court in Kilkenny earlier today, there was a few people protesting and looking for cars to beep in support. They had a poster saying there would be I think it was 19, could be 16 evictions today in court. I was driving so was paying attention more attention to the traffic, rather than the protest.

I did not beep in support. I think it is very sad what is happening to these people, but I have farm loans and I got the loans on the condition I pay them back and the security for them is some of my land. I know the consequences if I fail to keep to the agreement I signed up to. I will lose the land to pay for the loan, which is what I agreed would happen.
The people in court today, put their names to a similar agreement regarding their homes. There are serious consequences for not paying back a loan or mortgage. Protesting making out the banks are totally responsible and are the ones are fault is wrong, if the bank has followed it's side of the agreement as signed, and the person who took the money from the bank has failed to follow the agreement and shows no sign of rectifying the situation, it is clear which side is at fault.
No one wishes to see anyone evicted form where they live, but if they can't afford it, it might be the best thing for them over the long run. There is a reason why people end up in court over defaulting on a loan/mortgage.

JustTheOne

RobertKK wrote: »

I was passing by the court in Kilkenny earlier today, there was a few people protesting and looking for cars to beep in support. They had a poster saying there would be I think it was 19, could be 16 evictions today in court. I was driving so was paying attention more attention to the traffic, rather than the protest.

I did not beep in support. I think it is very sad what is happening to these people, but I have farm loans and I got the loans on the condition I pay them back and the security for them is some of my land. I know the consequences if I fail to keep to the agreement I signed up to. I will lose the land to pay for the loan, which is what I agreed would happen.
The people in court today, put their names to a similar agreement regarding their homes. There are serious consequences for not paying back a loan or mortgage. Protesting making out the banks are totally responsible and are the ones are fault is wrong, if the bank has followed it's side of the agreement as signed, and the person who took the money from the bank has failed to follow the agreement and shows no sign of rectifying the situation, it is clear which side is at fault.
No one wishes to see anyone evicted form where they live, but if they can't afford it, it might be the best thing for them over the long run. There is a reason why people end up in court over defaulting on a loan/mortgage.

And the banks have shown and said only if people refuse to even meet them to discuss paying it back in a manageable way will they repossess the homes.

People are refusing to even meet the banks thinking they can somehow garner support from the usual do gooders and stay in their homes without paying a penny.

Benevolent Misanthrope

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

latest ive been hearing there is a shortage of rental properties available ...

That might in part be because there's nearly 40,000 properties being held onto by people with over TWO YEARS of mortgage arrears...good luck holding onto your rental property owing over two years of rent.

RobertKK

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It's beyond me why anyone would think it's ok to flat out refuse to pay back what you owe, whether you can afford it or not, and then expect be to able to keep the house/car/insert item here.

If you can no longer afford your repayments fine, but you can't stop paying. Surely you could go to your bank/lender and come up with a new agreement?

At the end of it's about Supply and Demand - yes the banks were offering scandalous amounts of money but they would not have done so had the ordinary punter not been demanding these amounts with stopping to think of the possible consequences.

No-one was ever forced at gunpoint to take on these huge loans, each person made the decision of their own free will and they need to take some responsibility for their own mistakes.

The sense of entitlement and all out refusal to accept any blame for anything in this country really baffles me sometimes!

Very true, I have a friend who bought a house during the boom, it was in a rural area and cost €175k, he went to the bank looking for the money. The person in the bank dealing with mortgages said to him 'why don't you buy a bigger house as we can lend you €350k'. He said no that he didn't want a bigger house and he was happy with the house he was going to buy, the person tried to sell it to him but he refused and got the amount he originally wanted.
I can you he was very happy afterwards when everything was crashing that he got the amount he did and not the €350k as he said he wouldn't have been able to afford it.

Personal responsibility needs to be accepted, it is always nicer and easier to put the blame on someone or something else rather than accept it is 'mea culpa'.

Benevolent Misanthrope

RobertKK wrote: »

Very true, I have a friend who bought a house during the boom, it was in a rural area and cost €175k, he went to the bank looking for the money. The person in the bank dealing with mortgages said to him 'why don't you buy a bigger house as we can lend you €350k'. He said no that he didn't want a bigger house and he was happy with the house he was going to buy, the person tried to sell it to him but he refused and got the amount he originally wanted.
I can you he was very happy afterwards when everything was crashing that he got the amount he did and not the €350k as he said he wouldn't have been able to afford it.

Banks sell money. They are incentivized to sell you as much of it as they can.

If you drive out of a garage with a Ferrari when you went in for a Focus, who is at fault?

lawlolawl

Irish people are hilarious.

Blame the banks for reckless lending during the boom then proceed to complain about how difficult it is to get a mortgage nowadays because banks want you to have a 20% deposit before they will give you a mortgage.

It's always someone elses fault with us.

end of the road

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Why do you think banks are being bailed out, eotr?

i all ready told you. read the thread, read the posts, the answers are all here.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It's beyond me why anyone would think it's ok to flat out refuse to pay back what you owe, whether you can afford it or not, and then expect be to able to keep the house/car/insert item here.

If you can no longer afford your repayments fine, but you can't stop paying. Surely you could go to your bank/lender and come up with a new agreement?

At the end of it's about Supply and Demand - yes the banks were offering scandalous amounts of money but they would not have done so had the ordinary punter not been demanding these amounts with stopping to think of the possible consequences.

No-one was ever forced at gunpoint to take on these huge loans, each person made the decision of their own free will and they need to take some responsibility for their own mistakes.

The sense of entitlement and all out refusal to accept any blame for anything in this country really baffles me sometimes!

incorrect, it's not the people's fault the banks were offering the money. it's the banks responsibility to only give amounts they can be sure people will pay back. people always take personal responsibility when it comes to what they are responsible for. this idea that there is a sense of entitlement is just over exaggerated nonsense.

RobertKK wrote: »

I was passing by the court in Kilkenny earlier today, there was a few people protesting and looking for cars to beep in support. They had a poster saying there would be I think it was 19, could be 16 evictions today in court. I was driving so was paying attention more attention to the traffic, rather than the protest.

I did not beep in support. I think it is very sad what is happening to these people, but I have farm loans and I got the loans on the condition I pay them back and the security for them is some of my land. I know the consequences if I fail to keep to the agreement I signed up to. I will lose the land to pay for the loan, which is what I agreed would happen.
The people in court today, put their names to a similar agreement regarding their homes. There are serious consequences for not paying back a loan or mortgage. Protesting making out the banks are totally responsible and are the ones are fault is wrong, if the bank has followed it's side of the agreement as signed, and the person who took the money from the bank has failed to follow the agreement and shows no sign of rectifying the situation, it is clear which side is at fault.
No one wishes to see anyone evicted form where they live, but if they can't afford it, it might be the best thing for them over the long run. There is a reason why people end up in court over defaulting on a loan/mortgage.

no no, if the bank involved is 1 which was bailed out by the people, then protest and make out the bank is wrong as punishment for having to be bailed out by the people

Allinall

end of the road wrote: »

i all ready told you. read the thread, read the posts, the answers are all here.



incorrect, it's not the people's fault the banks were offering the money. it's the banks responsibility to only give amounts they can be sure people will pay back.



no no, if the bank involved is 1 which was bailed out by the people, then protest and make out the bank is wrong as punishment for having to be bailed out by the people



do gooders don't exist.

Where did you get this from?

Benevolent Misanthrope

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect, it's not the people's fault the banks were offering the money. it's the banks responsibility to only give amounts they can be sure people will pay back.

Wrong. It's the banks' managements' responsibility to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. This is a legal responsibility.

Of course, they made a mess of that and the shareholders got wiped out.

end of the road

JustTheOne wrote: »

And the banks have shown and said only if people refuse to even meet them to discuss paying it back in a manageable way will they repossess the homes.

People are refusing to even meet the banks thinking they can somehow garner support from the usual do gooders and stay in their homes without paying a penny.

do gooders don't exist.

lawlolawl wrote: »

complain about how difficult it is to get a mortgage nowadays because banks want you to have a 20% deposit before they will give you a mortgage.

the amount doing that are in a very small minority. most agree that banks must not be giving out money like sweeties. the banks are at fault for being bailed out.

JustTheOne

end of the road wrote: »

do gooders don't exist.



the amount doing that are in a very small minority. most agree that banks must not be giving out money like sweeties. the banks are at fault for being bailed out.

So everyone should keep their houses at the expense of the tax payer?

I realise this bit doesn't affect you.

maudgonner

end of the road wrote: »

do gooders don't exist.

The 'New Land League' does.

Chronicler

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect, it's not the people's fault the banks were offering the money. it's the banks responsibility to only give amounts they can be sure people will pay back.

When I'm borrowing a considerable sum from a lending institution I prefer to figure out for myself whether I can take on the repayments rather than trusting some spotty 22year old, who's trying to earn himeself a bigger commission, with that kind of decision.

Maybe I'm just some kind of weirdo though.

_Kaiser_

end of the road wrote: »

any outstanding amounts would have to be forgone by the bank should the house be repossessed and sold. considering they couldn't make the repayments in the first place they aren't going to be able to pay anything outstanding. the bank will get what the house is actually worth, it's enough for them. banks that were bailed out by the tax payer that is, any bank who wasn't can continue with business as usual

And where do you think the outstanding amount will go in your scenario? I'll tell you - it'll be passed on to all the customers of that bank in higher fees and charges.

It's ridiculously simple.. If YOU make the CHOICE to take out a loan/mortgage, it means YOU are responsible for repaying it or losing the asset - not the bank, not your neighbours, not the taxpayers.

I don't get why this is such a difficult concept for some people. It's called taking responsibility for your decisions as an adult - and whether you read the documentation or not, understood all the jargon or not, or miscalculated or not, if you find it's unaffordable, it's up to YOU to work out an affordable plan with your lender, not expect "someone else" to pick up the tab for you!

TheExile1878

maudgonner wrote: »

The 'New Land League' does.

Sadly, the biggest bunch of bollixes outside of Paul Murphy's crowd.

FortySeven

Chronicler wrote: »

When I'm borrowing a considerable sum from a lending institution I prefer to figure out for myself whether I can take on the repayments rather than trusting some spotty 22year old, who's trying to earn himeself a bigger commission, with that kind of decision.

Maybe I'm just some kind of weirdo though.

Not a weirdo. I stress tested the mortgage @ 10% and was told by the bank that interest rates could never go that high so there was no need. Short memories those 22 year olds.

I took a 20 year mortgage with 20% down, (they wanted 10%) and can still afford it after splitting with partner and paying it alone.

I should not have to bail out anyone who wasn't as prudent as me.