All Brendans figures got lashed tonight on the late late show. I dont think he got a fair say but maybe David Mc Williams etc shouted louder than him. Good TV though and well done Brendan, You Tried but maybe rework the figures to see if you are actually in the ballpark at all.
Brendan's figures challenged on the Late Late Show
- Thread starter four18
- Start date
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,772
Hi four
I am away for most of the weekend, but will respond to the numbers thrown out by David McWilliams later. It was frenetic and very difficult to deal with all the stuff thrown out. I don't think I got any of my numbers wrong, but I will check the replay later to see what I said.
McWilliams said something like "there are 10's of thousands, no - hundreds of thousands in arrears"
There are 66,000 houses in arrears over 90 days according to the last Central Bank figures. (83,251 mortgage accounts)
There are 36,000 homes in arrears of under 90 days.
Total homes in any arrears: 102,000 - that is a lot but it is not "hundreds of thousands"
74,379 mortgage accounts have been restructured - which is 60,000 homes - I think that is the figure I used.
P
PiedPiper
Guest
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,772
Hi four18
I had a chance to see what I said and what others said.
All of my figures were correct.
I said: There are around 600,000 homes with mortgages.
[broken link removed]
Total Residential Mortgage Accounts: 761,533
There are around 1.25 accounts for each home which has a mortgage, so that is 609,000 homes with mortgages
"66,000 of them are in arrears over 90 days. "
Accounts in arrears 91 -180 days: 17,553
in arrears over 180 days: 65,689
Total accounts in arrears over 90 days: 83,242
Equals about 66,593 homes.
I said: " 60,000 of them have been restructured "
Total residential mortgage loan accounts that are classified as restructured: 84,941
Equals about: 68,000 homes
OK, I was out by about 8,000 on this one. But I was making the point that a lot had been done for borrowers in arrears. I understated what had been done, instead of exaggerating it.
I said around 15,000 homes are totally unsustainable and we have not done enough for them.
This is my estimate. I reckon it's somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000, which is roughly derived as follows:
loans in arrears over 90 days|66,000
Less loans in positive equity|22,000
Loans in arrears over 90 days and negative equity| 44,000
1/3rd are paying at least the interest on their mortgage|15,000
1/3rd are paying some but not all the interest|15,000
1/3rd are paying little or nothing|15,000
I had a chance to see what I said and what others said.
All of my figures were correct.
I said: There are around 600,000 homes with mortgages.
[broken link removed]
Total Residential Mortgage Accounts: 761,533
There are around 1.25 accounts for each home which has a mortgage, so that is 609,000 homes with mortgages
"66,000 of them are in arrears over 90 days. "
Accounts in arrears 91 -180 days: 17,553
in arrears over 180 days: 65,689
Total accounts in arrears over 90 days: 83,242
Equals about 66,593 homes.
I said: " 60,000 of them have been restructured "
Total residential mortgage loan accounts that are classified as restructured: 84,941
Equals about: 68,000 homes
OK, I was out by about 8,000 on this one. But I was making the point that a lot had been done for borrowers in arrears. I understated what had been done, instead of exaggerating it.
I said around 15,000 homes are totally unsustainable and we have not done enough for them.
This is my estimate. I reckon it's somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000, which is roughly derived as follows:
Less loans in positive equity|22,000
Loans in arrears over 90 days and negative equity| 44,000
1/3rd are paying at least the interest on their mortgage|15,000
1/3rd are paying some but not all the interest|15,000
1/3rd are paying little or nothing|15,000
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,772
By contrast the facts and figures used by David McWilliams and David Hall were misleading or plain wrong
Mc Williams:
Total cases outstanding: 128,416
This equals about 102,000 homes.
I suppose if you multipy 102,000 homes by joint owners and their children and their guarantors, that would be "hundreds of thousands of people"
He later said that there were "128,000 people in arrears over 120 days"
This is simply outrageous. He is presumably referring to the 128,416 cases outstanding. 65,698 of those are in arrears over 90 days. But claiming 128,000 over 120 days makes the "mortgage time-bomb" much more explosive.
He later said "When I forecast that house prices would crash many people , including Brendan Burgess, laughed at me". He made that up out of thin air. I don't find him remotely funny to laugh with or at.
When I gave the example of a tough Mortgage Arrears Code as an example of what had been done for people in mortgage arrears, David Hall butted in "it's a voluntary code and it's not strong"
While we can certainly differ over whether the MAC is strong or weak, it is certainly not voluntary.
Mc Williams:
Total cases outstanding: 128,416
This equals about 102,000 homes.
I suppose if you multipy 102,000 homes by joint owners and their children and their guarantors, that would be "hundreds of thousands of people"
He later said that there were "128,000 people in arrears over 120 days"
This is simply outrageous. He is presumably referring to the 128,416 cases outstanding. 65,698 of those are in arrears over 90 days. But claiming 128,000 over 120 days makes the "mortgage time-bomb" much more explosive.
He later said "When I forecast that house prices would crash many people , including Brendan Burgess, laughed at me". He made that up out of thin air. I don't find him remotely funny to laugh with or at.
When I gave the example of a tough Mortgage Arrears Code as an example of what had been done for people in mortgage arrears, David Hall butted in "it's a voluntary code and it's not strong"
While we can certainly differ over whether the MAC is strong or weak, it is certainly not voluntary.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
Boss I didn't even check the figures, I presumed you were right and you haven't let me down.
McWilliams has the most unbelievable brass neck. He just doesn't care if what he says is wrong - if it sounds a crowd pleaser he just throws it out. I have heard so many instances especially on radio were I just scream "don't let him away with that" but he keeps getting away with it.
I liked the "I'm glad you asked me that question". His answer was such a contorted tissue of nonsense I can't remember half of it.
McWilliams has the most unbelievable brass neck. He just doesn't care if what he says is wrong - if it sounds a crowd pleaser he just throws it out. I have heard so many instances especially on radio were I just scream "don't let him away with that" but he keeps getting away with it.
I liked the "I'm glad you asked me that question". His answer was such a contorted tissue of nonsense I can't remember half of it.
truthseeker
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,577
Ive tried to watch the segment on rte player a few times but unfortunately the player just halts and refuses to play any of the show (although Ive sat through the ads a few times).
Brendan,
I watched the LLS last Friday and I think that you had an uphill struggle - looked like you were the only one who was trying to get some facts into the public domain to reflect the actual state of affairs wrt mortgage debt etc, but you were drowned out by the emotion of the other panellists and the audience, and indeed Mr. Tubridy.
Since last Friday I have heard DMcW on both RTE radio & TV, Today FM & Newstalk promoting his latest book and his comedy festival in Kilkenny, which is fair enough, but he seems to be making a lot of very pessimistic predictions about the state of the property market and in particular the tracker mortgage holders whom he describes as a ticking time bomb.....
In all cases when I heard this prediction by DMcW none of the interviewers could challenge him. Part of his argument was that the average historical rate of a 20 year mortgage in the past was 4 – 5%; hence once this tracker rate kicks in there will be mass default…..
IMO there is no one out there who can challenge this assertion objectively because there seems to be a huge information deficit.
In order to bring some perspective, accuracy and context to the overall discussion I am wondering if once and for all we could have the exact facts in relation to the quantity and quality of outstanding mortgage debt in Ireland.
I note that you state above that the 761,533 residential mortgage accounts (equate to approx 600,000 households based on your 1.25 factor), representing a total outstanding debt of €111,989,313 according to latest Central Bank report.
I have some questions relating to the above;
1. Why do we not know how many actual households these mortgages relate to?? – Have the banks not got this data already?? – this will give much more accurate analysis of the situation.
2. Have the banks any idea of the current book value of all the properties to which these mortgages relate – i.e. if there is a loan book of almost €112 billion – is that greater or less than the current valuation of all the mortgaged properties?
This is probably not a difficult question to answer but it would be nice to know if any proper analysis has been carried out by the banks…..
3. Do we have any kind of profile on the outstanding duration for the repayment of the above €112 billion - i.e. is there a breakdown on how many repayment years are left on all these mortgages;
e.g. - value and number of mortgages (households) in the
0 - 5 year remaining payment period;
6 - 10 year remaining payment period
11 - 15 year remaining payment period
16 - 20 year remaining payment period
20 - 25 year remaining payment period
etc etc.
This is important data, because any discussion concerning "ticking time-bombs" need to relate to the facts – otherwise is a speculative argument based on educated guesses.
The basis of DMcW argument is that most mortgages taken out during the boon were trackers and once rates go up these trackers will become unaffordable, however in the meantime the capital on these trackers is being paid back at the low tracker rate, and there is no short to medium term indication (at least up to two years) of interest rates being raised. Hence DMcW affordability argument may not be a rational one – unless of course these people lose their jobs, which is a different argument…..
I note that on the LLS a member of the audience indicated that she had been repaying her mortgage for the last 15 years and was not in favour of debt forgiveness - of course she wouldn’t because she has probably paid off almost all of her mortgage and is probably not even in negative equity if she bought her house in 1997/1998......hence she would have an issue and may not understand those who are genuinely under pressure seeking debt forgiveness.
4. Does the above data include the buy to let mortgage debt?
And if not, where can we get the latest data relating to the BTL debt and apply similar analysis contained within points 1, 2 and 3 above?
Apologies for the protracted post, but this debate should not take place in an information vacuum, and I would appreciate if you could direct me to locating some insight into the above……
I watched the LLS last Friday and I think that you had an uphill struggle - looked like you were the only one who was trying to get some facts into the public domain to reflect the actual state of affairs wrt mortgage debt etc, but you were drowned out by the emotion of the other panellists and the audience, and indeed Mr. Tubridy.
Since last Friday I have heard DMcW on both RTE radio & TV, Today FM & Newstalk promoting his latest book and his comedy festival in Kilkenny, which is fair enough, but he seems to be making a lot of very pessimistic predictions about the state of the property market and in particular the tracker mortgage holders whom he describes as a ticking time bomb.....
In all cases when I heard this prediction by DMcW none of the interviewers could challenge him. Part of his argument was that the average historical rate of a 20 year mortgage in the past was 4 – 5%; hence once this tracker rate kicks in there will be mass default…..
IMO there is no one out there who can challenge this assertion objectively because there seems to be a huge information deficit.
In order to bring some perspective, accuracy and context to the overall discussion I am wondering if once and for all we could have the exact facts in relation to the quantity and quality of outstanding mortgage debt in Ireland.
I note that you state above that the 761,533 residential mortgage accounts (equate to approx 600,000 households based on your 1.25 factor), representing a total outstanding debt of €111,989,313 according to latest Central Bank report.
I have some questions relating to the above;
1. Why do we not know how many actual households these mortgages relate to?? – Have the banks not got this data already?? – this will give much more accurate analysis of the situation.
2. Have the banks any idea of the current book value of all the properties to which these mortgages relate – i.e. if there is a loan book of almost €112 billion – is that greater or less than the current valuation of all the mortgaged properties?
This is probably not a difficult question to answer but it would be nice to know if any proper analysis has been carried out by the banks…..
3. Do we have any kind of profile on the outstanding duration for the repayment of the above €112 billion - i.e. is there a breakdown on how many repayment years are left on all these mortgages;
e.g. - value and number of mortgages (households) in the
0 - 5 year remaining payment period;
6 - 10 year remaining payment period
11 - 15 year remaining payment period
16 - 20 year remaining payment period
20 - 25 year remaining payment period
etc etc.
This is important data, because any discussion concerning "ticking time-bombs" need to relate to the facts – otherwise is a speculative argument based on educated guesses.
The basis of DMcW argument is that most mortgages taken out during the boon were trackers and once rates go up these trackers will become unaffordable, however in the meantime the capital on these trackers is being paid back at the low tracker rate, and there is no short to medium term indication (at least up to two years) of interest rates being raised. Hence DMcW affordability argument may not be a rational one – unless of course these people lose their jobs, which is a different argument…..
I note that on the LLS a member of the audience indicated that she had been repaying her mortgage for the last 15 years and was not in favour of debt forgiveness - of course she wouldn’t because she has probably paid off almost all of her mortgage and is probably not even in negative equity if she bought her house in 1997/1998......hence she would have an issue and may not understand those who are genuinely under pressure seeking debt forgiveness.
4. Does the above data include the buy to let mortgage debt?
And if not, where can we get the latest data relating to the BTL debt and apply similar analysis contained within points 1, 2 and 3 above?
Apologies for the protracted post, but this debate should not take place in an information vacuum, and I would appreciate if you could direct me to locating some insight into the above……
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,772
This thread is about the specific claim that my numbers were wrong.
I have moved replies to this thread which are general comments on approaches to mortgages arrears to the main thread
Brendan and David McWilliams on Late Late Show
I have moved replies to this thread which are general comments on approaches to mortgages arrears to the main thread
Brendan and David McWilliams on Late Late Show
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,772
I had forgotten about McWilliams description of his role in the guarantee:
But this is what he said on his website on the morning before the guarantee was announced
[broken link removed]
.
There is no mention anywhere in his artice that the guarantee should be temporary.
And it's very clear that this applies to all creditors other than the shareholders. That includes senior and subordinated bondholders.
But this is what he said on his website on the morning before the guarantee was announced
[broken link removed]
.
There is no mention anywhere in his artice that the guarantee should be temporary.
And it's very clear that this applies to all creditors other than the shareholders. That includes senior and subordinated bondholders.
millieforbes
Registered User
- Messages
- 305
I suspect the answer to this is reporting or systems - eg the banks report the information to the central bank on the basis of number of accounts, rather than number of households or that the data structures dont support easily reporting the number of households rather than the number of accounts
Is this really useful information to have? I'm not sure how it would add to the debate?
I dont think this information exists in a cohesive report across all banks but individual banks do have this information
4. Does the above data include the buy to let mortgage debt?
And if not, where can we get the latest data relating to the BTL debt and apply similar analysis contained within points 1, 2 and 3 above?
[/QUOTE]
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,772
Hi Novaman
Most of the information is available from a variety of sources. I will try to compile a Key Post on the issue.
Most of the information is available from a variety of sources. I will try to compile a Key Post on the issue.
Brendan - thanks for your reply.
By coincidence there is an analysis of the mortgage market is an article in today's Indo by Charlie Weston with a corresponding graphic which indicates that there are a total of 169,000 mortgages, of the 762,000, "in trouble" and out of a total of 150,000 BLT mortgages with a value of €32b, 48,000 BTLs are also "in trouble" (value of €13b).
Whilst I welcome any analysis I think the Indo has exaggerated the extent of the problem, by including the 40,211 residential mortgages, which are not in arrears but have been re-structured, in the 169,000 figure, thus adding more emotion that fact into the analysis.....
By coincidence there is an analysis of the mortgage market is an article in today's Indo by Charlie Weston with a corresponding graphic which indicates that there are a total of 169,000 mortgages, of the 762,000, "in trouble" and out of a total of 150,000 BLT mortgages with a value of €32b, 48,000 BTLs are also "in trouble" (value of €13b).
Whilst I welcome any analysis I think the Indo has exaggerated the extent of the problem, by including the 40,211 residential mortgages, which are not in arrears but have been re-structured, in the 169,000 figure, thus adding more emotion that fact into the analysis.....
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,772
If I get my Key Post done quickly, I might offer a version of it to the Indo as a response to Charlie's article.
These are real figures, not exaggerated. Any mortgage that has been restructured in any way, shape or form is in difficulty.
Why restructure to begin with if you are not in trouble?
Can it be confirmed that the 40.211 residential mortgages "without arrears" have not had arrears recapitalised?
And every one forgets the mortgages that are not in trouble (yet) which are hanging on via parents direct supplements, parents indirect supplements (clothing children and grandchildren, buying unaffordable food and presents to ease their children's load) and destitution behind closed doors (every expenditure cut to the bone).
These you cannot count so any estimate you guys discuss are just that an estimate!
You don't know.
Last edited:
Wishes
I respect the fact that homeowners who restructured mortgages may be classified as being "in trouble".
However it all depends on the context of the restructuring - there is a pie chart on the Central Bank report which breaks down the analysis of the restructured loans - 12% had the arrears capitalised.
If we accept the 169,000 number as being the correct “in trouble” amount (equating to 135,000 households – based on the 1.25 factor) then I am inclined to believe the analysis presented by McW on the LLS debate – this is almost 25% of the current residential mortgage book, and based on a household size of 2.73 this equates to the welfare of almost 370,000 people - quite significant………………….
However I will reserve any judgement until the facts outlined in my initial post above are clarified by Brendan.
I respect the fact that homeowners who restructured mortgages may be classified as being "in trouble".
However it all depends on the context of the restructuring - there is a pie chart on the Central Bank report which breaks down the analysis of the restructured loans - 12% had the arrears capitalised.
If we accept the 169,000 number as being the correct “in trouble” amount (equating to 135,000 households – based on the 1.25 factor) then I am inclined to believe the analysis presented by McW on the LLS debate – this is almost 25% of the current residential mortgage book, and based on a household size of 2.73 this equates to the welfare of almost 370,000 people - quite significant………………….
However I will reserve any judgement until the facts outlined in my initial post above are clarified by Brendan.