Some consumers are ripping off all the other consumers by defaulting on their mortgages - is that not a RIP OFF too?
Sarenco,
Just for clarification purposes, are you stating the the Central Bank of Ireland has not said that the average new mortgage rate for borrowers in Ireland is 3.21%, the highest in the Euro area, while the mean average across the rest of the EU is 1.83%. Is this correct? If this is not a RIP OFF for Irish consumers I do not know what is.
Sunny, start up a thread on rip off hotel prices if you want. However with regard to this Thread, if Irish banks charged borrowers the same as they do in Finland (currently under 1%) there would be no repossessions as borrowers would be able to make their monthly repayments, subsequently there would be no need for costly litigation (again, Ireland dearest in the EU in this regard), subsequently there would be no delinguent loans, so there would be no need to sell these loans on, as they would be performing.
That's a very simplistic take on things. And a major generalisation.However with regard to this Thread, if Irish banks charged borrowers the same as they do in Finland (currently under 1%) there would be no repossessions as borrowers would be able to make their monthly repayments, subsequently there would be no need for costly litigation (again, Ireland dearest in the EU in this regard), as a consequence, there would be no delinguent loans, so there would be no need to sell these loans on as they would all be performing. However this is not happening, welcome to RIP OFF REPUBLIC.
Those high default rates exist on tracker portfolios here, where there are low interest rates.If Irish borrowers were paying 0.81% on their mortgages, the level of default would reduce to that of Finland. This would be because Irish borrowers would be able to afford their monthly mortgage payments at this low interest rate.
As already pointed out by other posters, this argument is utterly simplistic and doesn't stand up to the most basic level of scrutiny.Davy's Finnish report specifically states that the default rate of total stock in Finland was 1.2%, in Ireland it is 8.1% (a vast difference). If Irish borrowers were paying 0.81% on their mortgages, the level of default would reduce to that of Finland. This would be because Irish borrowers would be able to afford their monthly mortgage payments at this low interest rate.
Not when they fly in the face of reality.Sometimes simple arguments are the best.
As already pointed out by other posters, this argument is utterly simplistic and doesn't stand up to the most basic level of scrutiny.
Thousands of Irish borrowers defaulted on their home loan obligations even though they were being charged interest at a very low margin (i.e. trackers).
Sarenco,
This is what you said on the 14th November 2014 on this forum.
"To be fair, I don't think bankers are citing trackers as the reason for high SVR rates. They are all citing their relatively high cost of funds, which is largely due their weak balance sheets. It's all about the NPLs..."
So what is it, the trackers or not the trackers. Viewers can make up their mind and you can change yours
What are you talking about?No, you should read this thread again and take it in the overall context of what is being said regarding trackers affecting the overall high mortgage rate in Ireland (albeit that some pertinent posts have been deleted)
What are you talking about?
I have consistently pointed out on here that our extraordinary default rates, not trackers, are the primary reason why new mortgage rates here are higher here than elsewhere in the Eurozone.
Thankfully competition has driven down the effective cost of borrowing to purchase a home very considerably since 2014.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?