The accelerating fall in Sinn Féin support

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122595515#Comment_122595515

Under normal circumstances you'd probably have to jump through a few extra hoops, but if your brother is Minister for Finance, and he really wants you to get that mortgage, yes you'll get the mortgage, no problem.

pureza

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122595544#Comment_122595544

In other words No,do you see the problem now with the SF plan ?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596245#Comment_122596245

You seem to think the analogy of your brother's land is a meaningful one. I think it is ridiculous.

So oddly enough I still don't see the problem with the plan. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

deezell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596342#Comment_122596342

Suppose if a developer offered to build houses on land without paying the €40k per site to the owner, so he just gets pays or his construction costs. The owner has a future stake in the house. Would the bank issue a mortgage on this joint ownership? Could the land owner exclude the unpaid for site as security on the mortgage? I doubt the bank would agree. They'd want a clear joint tenancy on the registration, with percentage ownership from the outset, and in the event of a default, or price collapse or negative equity, the landowner, and householder lose out. So who's going to agree to a deferred payment for a site? Who's going to approve a mortgage unless the site is part of the equity. A deferred contract of sale of the to the householder in 25 years leaves the landowner liable for CGT immediately, not when he cashes in. Its all Sinnfenomics, make it up as you go along. Property and house transactions are the way they are for a reason. They work. Market forces and prices have nothing to do with the rules of ownership, equity and liability. Something dreamt up in a pub in Drumcondra is not going to trump hundreds of years of legal evolution.

pureza

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596342#Comment_122596342

You obviously know nothing about banking

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122594294#Comment_122594294

It would be but it's talking out your hole to be blunt. .

The house im currently in was bought with a mortgage and the land in someone elses title.

You are making it out like this is something that is unfamiliar to banks.

pureza

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596421#Comment_122596421

You're a SF supporter though,so you would say that

The rest of us deal in reality

A bank used be able to work on a solicitors guarantee but not anymore,so I guess it's you thats talking out of their hole

Even working on a solicitors guarantee though eventually has to be cleared up

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122593920#Comment_122593920

Not being able to repossess them in the event of a default increases the risk to the bank. The bank can derisk by only offering mortgages at 2.5xincome instead of 4xincome. The scheme would be dead in the water.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596757#Comment_122596757

Not being able to repossess them in the event of a default increases the risk to the bank.

🤣

You may have misunderstood my earlier point about the irony of this argument, so I will spell it out.

Since about 2009 government policy has deliberately been to make it almost impossible for a bank to repossess a PDH mortgage in default.

This is why currently, even with a booming property market, booming economy and nearly full employment, nearly 7% of mortgages are in default, with very little if any facing any real threat of repossession. Some of these are over 10 years in arrears.

Yet all of a sudden everybody is worried about the increased risk to banks because they won't be able to repossess a property?! Give me a break.

Many people are talking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue, not least the minister for housing.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596845#Comment_122596845

I didn't miss the irony, but even if the bank currently has a high risk of not being able to repossess, the SF Scheme increases that risk even further.

The point I make is that increased risk is increased risk, no matter how high or low current risk is. That affects bank pricing.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122596864#Comment_122596864

It not currently a question of if there is a risk that they are unable to repossess!

The banks are currently unable to repossess properties because the government does not want them to repossess properties.

That seems unlikely to change anytime soon, no matter who is in government. The banks are realistic enough to know that and will lend for whatever government scheme is in operation.