Greg Connor:"more than 35% of mortgages arrears are strategic defaults"



I thought a 100% mortgage meant that no deposit was required? Am I wrong?
 
Commonsense. I phrased that poorly .
What I meant was I am not always sure the Mortgage should be 1st paid.( not a 100% Mortgage)
Get away with nothing here !
 
Gerry Canning said:
Commonsense. I phrased that poorly .
What I meant was I am not always sure the Mortgage should be 1st paid.( not a 100% Mortgage)
Get away with nothing here !
Click to expand...


Lol, did you edit it or did I read it wrong? Apologies.


I disagree with you though, your mortgage/rent is the first priority and should be.
 
Commonsense;

No I didn,t edit it .
You should agree with Gerry ,he is always right!
Ps. Mortgage/Rent should most times be prioritized but if you had a sick child etc. I accept hard luck case s make bad law.
 
Gerry Canning said:
Commonsense;

No I didn,t edit it .
You should agree with Gerry ,he is always right!
Ps. Mortgage/Rent should most times be prioritized but if you had a sick child etc. I accept hard luck case s make bad law.
Click to expand...


My apologies so, I misread it.

I still disagree. I think in this context a sick child and so on, is not the issue. It's where the borrower is in severe financial difficulties and cannot repay all of their debts and is possibly unlikely to be in a position to so in the future. For many people the mortgage is one debt on top of more.

Some people are going to have to accept that we can go around all the houses, bring in all the proposals/solutions that we can, but ultimately some people are just so deep in debt that the best thing for them is to o let go of the house, renegotiate the debt and move on. Sooner rather than later.
 
Lets all go back to Little Dorrit and let's serve out our debt in time at the debtors prison. There simply has to be write downs for hopeless cases. I believe that in the fullness of time the ISI procedures will get to this point, how long it will take I don't know it could be many years.
 


Absolutely not and that is not what I said:

"let go of the house, renegotiate the debt and move on."

I don't believe there is anything to be served by people having a debt around their necks, how could they move on?
 
I find it amusing to hear Deputy Spring (former Anglo Irish banker) berating the various CEO's for their failure to give write downs. Yet another TD "grandstanding" for the sake of being seen to be hard on those awful Bankers.
Write downs, interest deals etc are not just a cost to the nasty Banks, but ultimately a bill that taxpayers (Dep. Spring's constituents) will have to pay, since we own most of the Banks. On George Hook this evening, Dep. Spring was arguing that since Banks had made provisions in their accounts for mortgage losses that they should actually pass on these provisions to mortgage holders. That's the type of banking logic that got Anglo Irish - and us- into the mess we are in.
Listening to some Deputies - Pearse Doherty- they would seem to want write downs thrown around like snuff at a wake. If there is to be write downs then we must also see repossessions where the loans are entirely unsustainable. It cannot be only write downs.
 
That Spring lad does'nt have a clue....he admitted it himself at 1 stage on George Hook that he did'nt understand some aspects of the banking system he was specifically questioning today!
Only in Ireland would you have quality like that on a parliamentary committee.

How high up was he in Anglo does anyone know?
 
Last edited:
When challenged on RTE radio news at one today as to whether the banks could make extensive write-downs without needing further recapitalisation he said he was "not an expert at that level of detail". This is a guy who has just come from a Dail Finance Committee which has been interviewing the banks. What on earth was he asking them?
 
Delboy said:
She claims to have only put 12k aside since she stopped paying what's due, which I find hard to believe given it's 6 properties we're talking about here. And admits to using the rent to make up for the shortfall in her salary.
Click to expand...

If you're original deal was interest only, which a lot of landlords had in the boom times, with the belief it would continue indefinitely, then suddenly the banks started demanding interest and capital the rents in no way matched the new repayments. In addition, all the hidden expenses of property ownership started to dawn on the new landlords. The NPPR, the new prsi, the PRTB, the costs of voids, the costs of repairs. All of these hit at the same time, combined with drops in salary, or one partner losing a job. So when the lady admints that she's actually using up rent to make up the shortfall in her mortgage it's easy to see how she'd have only 12K.

What she didn't admit I'd imagine is that 'subsidy' is not only to pay other debts but it's to keep up a certain lifestyle.
 

That is not at all clear to me, as my understanding of the 2000 customers with money saved, well it's ear marked for other bills as they become due. And if they paid the mortgage, they might not be able to run a car, buy a car, pay any major bills that are due to be paid.

It would make no sense for someone to have savings AND the ability to pay the mortgage to not pay the mortgage.
 
Delboy said:
AIB have found so far 500 mortgaged properties which were supposed to be PPR's but are now in fact rented out....and no payments have being made on them in 3 years+!
Click to expand...

And I can inform them of another 2 that I know of. But it's about 2 years not 3.
 
Bronte said:
...It would make no sense for someone to have savings AND the ability to pay the mortgage to not pay the mortgage.
Click to expand...

It might'nt make sense but there's no doubt it's happening...some people are looking for deals as they don't like the downside of their investment decisions
 
Delboy said:
It might'nt make sense but there's no doubt it's happening...some people are looking for deals as they don't like the downside of their investment decisions
Click to expand...

If you can afford to pay how will you get a deal?
 
commonsense said:
, but ultimately some people are just so deep in debt that the best thing for them is to to let go of the house, renegotiate the debt and move on.
Click to expand...

How about an example of someone with a 300K mortgage in a house worth 100K and they cannot afford 300K but they can afford 200K. Would it not be better to write down the morgage by 100K to 200K rather than the forcing them to leave the house?

It would be different if you were in a house worth 500K with a mortgage of 600K that you are unable to repay, when you could live in a house that you could afford, and the bank could actually get something back out of the property and the borrower would be able to now deal with the shortfall of 100K plus costs.
 
Rent receivers

Some people on here were mentioning that rent receivers are the answer to strategic defaulters. This to me might make sense where you have a block of many apartments, but not to individual houses with individual borrowers or someone with say 3 buy to lets in 3 different locations. The rent receivers are going to have to be paid, you can be damn sure the banks will hire the top billing receivers for this, and any trouble from tenants has to come out of rent, repairs will be by the most costly repair firms and the banks will end up with I'd say maybe 50% of the rent. If that.
 
Bronte said:
How about an example of someone with a 300K mortgage in a house worth 100K and they cannot afford 300K but they can afford 200K. Would it not be better to write down the morgage by 100K to 200K rather than the forcing them to leave the house?
Click to expand...


This could work if they mortgage holders are in employment for example. A split mortgage would be a very workable solution here. Not a write down though.


It depends on how much the mortgage holder could repay, whether or not they are in employment. If they could only repay a 300k mortgage then it makes better sense for all to sell up....
 
commonsense said:
It depends on how much the mortgage holder could repay, whether or not they are in employment. If they could only repay a 300k mortgage then it makes better sense for all to sell up....
Click to expand...

Except if you're a professional of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register