Frontline programme on mortgage arrears and negative equity

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is such an emotive argument, it always creates more heat than light. People always mix up negative equity with arrears, and they are both different issues with different solutions and different consequences.

I get it that people are sick of bailing out the banks, and don't want to bail out mortgage holders too, especially if they are working hard to pay off their own mortgages. But sometimes, I am shocked by the lack of empathy and sympathy for people like the Clonee couple. There is a real social and economic issue there that needs to be addressed. It won't go away, no matter what the moral hazard.

FWIW, here's my tuppence worth.

1 - People in NE should not receive state help just because they are in NE. They should continue to repay their mortgages if they can afford to, NE or not.

2 - People in deep NE who are also deep in arrears, and are unlikely ever to be able to meet their mortgage repayments, should have some of their debt written down by the banks so they can get on with their lives. This is what happens with unrealistic debts in business, it happens in other countries, and it is the most sensible thing to do. However, this should not apply to people who bought expensive homes. Nobody should get a debt write off to allow them live in a mansion. Those people should be forced to trade down to modest homes as part of the package.

3 - People deep in arrears who are not in NE should be forced to sell their homes to pay off their loans. That's just simple loan security enforcement. If they have equity, they don't need anyone's help, the state's or the banks'.

4 - People who are deep in NE, have good solid incomes, but are desperate to move for whatever reason (job offer in another city, tiny high-rise apt that may be unsuitable for raising children, etc....), the banks need to work with these people to find solutions for them. The state doesn't need to help them, except maybe by changing the rules re TRS etc so that they are not too heavily penalised for renting out their apts, and moving to become renters in more suitable family homes.

And the general public really needs to show people like the Clonee couple some basic compassion - we live in a society. Looking at some of the comments on this thread and elsewhere, you'd swear we were at a Sarah Palin rally (The Irish Milky Tea Party?) These people are not the enemy.

Finally, Clinton was right. Moral hazard aside, the economy will never recover unles the mortgage issue is addressed in some way. Consumer spending will never return with 300,000 households in NE who don't know what's around the corner. I'm not saying they should all be helped just 'cos they are in NE, but unless those people know there is some sort of help potentially available to them should they really, really desperately need it, they will never spend a penny again, and unemployment will stay high.

This isn't just all about fairness and moral hazard. It is also about what's right for the society we live in and the country and the economy as a whole. Recovery should come first. For a recovery, we need solutions to the mortgage crisis. There is no point in pretending the issue will just go away over time. That's just ostrich head-in-the-sand stuff.
 

Dont want to personalise the argument to this particular couple - as none of us know the true circumstances.

To play devils advocate:

I think the argument that couples like this should be helped may be a big red herring. Think about it.

Say a couple has a neg equity apartment in Dublin communter belt with a mortgage of 1,500 per month. They need a house as they want to raise a family. Why do they need a 'bailout' instead of doing the following?

If they rented the apartment out, they'd probably get c.600 per month after tax income. For only €50 per week more they could rent a 3 bed semi in a working class area of Dublin (I assume they are commuters). If they could not afford the €50 per week more, they could reschedule the mortgage and/or go interest only for a while.

The problem is that people like this find paying €1,500 per month for an apartment that is deep in neg equity unpallatable. They want someone to come along with an easy way out for them. They are not prepared to take control of the situation themselves and solve it as suggested above. Their problem isnt that they cannot move into a house (because they can), its that they are resentful of paying such a high mortgage for a neg equity apartment.
 

In the case outlined on the programme, the couple could afford the mortgage, in fact they could afford a higher mortgage as they had wanted to trade up. They can do as you suggest, rent out apartment and rent a property suitable for themselve. Or they can overpay the mortgage to bring down the negative equity and sell. But it would be far nicer for the bank to just lob 100K or whatever off the mortgage and the tax payer will pay for it as Riad is suggesting.

Riad who has not had sympathy or empathy on this thread today?
 
Agree 100%, an appalling programme. I nearly put my foot through the TV at the "professional public servant" and "win win win" comments.

I'm normally pro public servant and defend what I see as attacks on public servants' pay, pensions and conditions by the gutter media. But that woman did the public service no favours.
 
Bronte, perhaps you should re-read my first post. I never said the Clonee couple should have anything lobbed off their mortgage, 100k or otherwise. I said the bank should help them find a solution, i.e. a NE mortgage if they can comfortably make the repayments. I also said the tax system should not penalise them if they choose to rent out their apt, and rent a larger home for themselves. Currently, it would treat them like professional investors, which they clearly are not.

The only ones who I suggested should possibly get any write-offs are those deep in NE who are also deep in arrears, and unlikely ever to emerge from it.

As for sympathy, I believe someone on this thread has already called the Clonee couple "speculators who got caught out". That, to me, is neither empathetic or sympathetic. It is just plain unkind, because it is knowingly and patently untrue.
 
I'm normally pro public servant and defend what I see as attacks on public servants' pay, pensions and conditions by the gutter media. But that woman did the public service no favours.

I agree fully with you. In fact, a conspiracy theorist might think that she had been put up by those opposed to debt forgiveness to give the perfect example of why it should not be entertained.

But she is not typical of the public service and don't allow her to influence your attitudes.
 
An interesting approach from one of the guys on The Property Pin in response to a question on what does anyone intend to do about the Frontline Programme.

 

No there was no background given so maybe she wasn't that wealthy at all but the bank loaned recklessly and gave her a six or seven times salary multiple, or gave her a three year fixed rate knowing she wouldn't pass the stress test if given a variable rate! Maybe they gave her a 100% mortgage, or the first five years interest only or maybe they were allowing for her to rent a room! In general why should the bank not suffer some of the consequences if they loaned recklessly?


Couldn't agree more.
 
Not meant as an attack on Brendan but on his consistent point of view which I feel is not balanced.
I think there is more than just money involved, there are many people in misery, most are young people & couples & couples with children.

Well, I can't fault you for noticing Brendan's consistency, but focus on the view, not the man.
 
An interesting approach from one of the guys on The Property Pin in response to a question on what does anyone intend to do about the Frontline Programme.

(chuckle)

It would be a lot funnier if the license fee was optional or if RTE consistently produced incisive well balanced reporting on both local, national and world news.
All we get is the usual don't-rock-the-boat stuff which IN AND OF ITSELF has created conditions that have allowed the systemic corruption and lax standards we see in public regulation of commerce and planning development.
If we had public representatives that were held accountable by the Fourth Estate for inadequate regulation of the financial markets and bad planning decisions - BY LAW - we might see some changes in how the Gombeen Men run the show.

-----------------------

But in general I think the point was well made by the gentlemen from Dublin 4, the location itself being a nice irony.
 
In fact, a conspiracy theorist might think that she had been put up by those opposed to debt forgiveness to give the perfect example of why it should not be entertained.

Not a peep from me on this.

Oh, all right then...

"...shurely such blatant manipalashun of the Oirish Meeja could never blah, blah, blah...<insert long monologue here>..."
 
Aren't most people who start out with a mortgage generally only able to pay the mortgage and little else. It is a normal way to be?

(nods)

That's the way we were.

Running a Renault 4TL for transport and sitting on garden furniture in the front room.

Luckily we had foreseen the interest rate crisis in the early 1990's and went for a 10.6% Fixed Rate Mortgage for 3 years instead of the 10.3% variable, which in a year had headed towards 14% IIRC.

Otherwise we wouldn't have survived, and even then, there was no going out for meals or sun holidays for a year or two.

We cut our cloth according to our measure and got on with it.

La plus ça change
 

What job does this woman do in the public service? This €50 per week in clothes/grooming requirement does not sound like a normal p.s. job, even for higher management. It's so incredible and false looking that I'm beginning to wonder if this is a real person, or just an actress playing a part to get a rise from the audience?
 
I fully support government intervention to assist people like the Clonee couple because in their case negative equity is causing social problems (i.e. they can't exapnd their family).

That is not a social problem.

I won't be expanding my family for the near future (we have one child) because I am the sole income earner and it isn't a prudent decision. Should I be given assistance?

I saw the preceding programme but gave the frontline a miss, sounds like I made a good decision.
 
An interesting approach from one of the guys on The Property Pin in response to a question on what does anyone intend to do about the Frontline Programme.

The irony of complaining about the one sidedness of the Frontline programme, which it was, and then quoting from the Property Pin, is palpable. That website was originally supported by people ejected from AAM , who regularly lambasted you , and whose only mantra for the last five or so years is property was/is overvalued.
 
I thought that the irony of the PP post Brendan cited was that it was mocking the programme when you would have expected a post from that source to lay it on thicker - a double irony then?
 
I thought that the irony of the PP post Brendan cited was that it was mocking the programme when you would have expected a post from that source to lay it on thicker - a double irony then?

You mean the irony of it all was that it wasn't ironic at all?
 

You call it irony. I think it's a particularly funny and clever post which makes the point very well.

RTE is the national broadcaster which presumably has a statutory duty to be responsible. The Pin has no such duty or no such pretence.


(Fair play to Pat Kenny though - he has managed to get me to defend the activities of The Property Pin. That is some achievement.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.