"vulture funds just want to evict people to turn a quick profit"

newtothis said:
A meaningless statement by itself. How many mortgages are there with banks? how many with vulture funds?



Another example of the courts trying to apply some sense and balance to the lender/customer relationship. The operative word is "forced"......
Click to expand...

I made two factually correct points about Vulture funds to counter your factually incorrect point which was :

newtothis said:
because of the way they operate you have no prospect of a long-term solution being put in place
Click to expand...
(Emphasis by me.)

MTR is a long-term solution to mortgage distress as is a PIA.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi

I have done the analysis here:

You are far more likely to get a Mortgage to Rent deal if you are with a vulture fund

Brendan
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, Mortgage to Rent is indeed a good long term solution for some. I don't think the current scheme was operating when my own case was resolved. It's an interesting one, as it's long-term from a customer perspective, but short-term from the lender's perspective - a win-win indeed. The problem is the numbers availing of it are very low and it's not an option for many, as it requires the active participation of a 3rd party which is not always available.

By the way, it's not just an opinion of mine that vulture funds are only interested in the short-term: the one I dealt with said this directly to me. Mind you, they said plenty of other things as well, some of which were flat-out lies (they said contradictory things to others I've spoken to), so maybe it's not true either.

I stand over my main point, which is there is a difference between dealing with a bank and a vulture fund and you are more likely to lose your home with the latter.
 
What is the main difference dealing with a vulture fund rather than a bank?

Second question, how are you more likely to lose your home?
 
Bronte said:
What is the main difference dealing with a vulture fund rather than a bank?
Click to expand...

I had thought I’d already answered this, but to restate in a bit more detail…..

As I’ve also previously mentioned, any views I have are as a result of direct personal experience and from talking to others who have had similar direct experience.

Another point is that in comparing the banks’ and the vulture funds’ handling of this issue they are both radically different from any dealings I’ve had with banks or investors of various types in 20+ years of being in business. Without experiencing it, it’s very hard to believe the way they both behave, which is why I think those without this direct experience can take the view that experiences are exaggerated or just untrue.

Firstly, the similarities between the banks and vulture funds. It is next to impossible to deal with anyone who has authority to do anything. There is a lot of incompetence encountered; failures to follow up on commitments, documents going missing, lack of response to queries, the list is endless. Despite having a fairly simple set of procedures the follow (the Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process, or MARP), in mine and other cases I know of, they both had multiple breaches of its provisions (without any consequences, by the way, unlike breaches by borrowers, but that’s another story). Shockingly, they were both capable of telling out-and-out lies and/or fabricating documents.

The overall impression I got was for the day-to-day stuff, there are probably more differences between the different banks than between banks and the servicing agents used by the vulture funds: they were all much the same.

Now, the differences….

On the positive side, the vulture funds are definitely quicker to act, which if you’re in a position to reach a positive outcome is great. This could presumably work against you too if the outcome isn’t going to be positive, so it could also be a negative.

The biggest difference, though, is the vulture funds will not offer any solution that involves them in the long-term, unless you can manage to clear any arrears immediately (in which case the mortgage continues on as originally intended, though with someone other than the original lender now controlling the interest rate for non-tracker mortgages).

MARP sets out a number of alternative repayment arrangements that may be offered. None of these are available, other than anything that offers repayment in a short (e.g. less than two years’) timeframe.

Bronte said:
Second question, how are you more likely to lose your home?
Click to expand...

Vulture funds want a return on their investment in a short-time frame. There aren’t that many ways a mortgage can be converted into cash in that time frame:

- Borrower comes up with the cash to buy them out. Unlikely, as it’s next to impossible to get a new mortgage with a history of arrears and if the borrower had the cash they probably wouldn’t be in the situation in the first place.

- A third party comes up with the cash to facilitate the borrower. For example, the Mortgage to Rent scheme: great if it can be made to work, but so far the numbers involved are low, probably because the third party has to be convinced.

- “Voluntary sale”, in which case they lose their home. I put this in quotes, as it’s highly questionable how voluntary it is. Borrowers are put under intense pressure to sell, especially if any negative equity has gone. Don’t get me wrong: if someone is living in a €1m+ house without the means to keep it, I’m not suggesting they should be entitled to stay. However, there are many (most?) who have recovered their position but have no way to clear any arrears in the short-term. They will probably find it impossible to raise a new mortgage, meaning they will have lost the ability to own any home, perhaps for ever.

- Forced sale or repossession, in which case they lose their home.

There may well be other outcomes, but the basic point remains: because of the lack of consideration of long-term solutions, the chances of losing your home are increased.
 
newtothis said:
I had thought I’d already answered this, but to restate in a bit more detail…..

As I’ve also previously mentioned, any views I have are as a result of direct personal experience and from talking to others who have had similar direct experience.

Another point is that in comparing the banks’ and the vulture funds’ handling of this issue they are both radically different from any dealings I’ve had with banks or investors of various types in 20+ years of being in business. Without experiencing it, it’s very hard to believe the way they both behave, which is why I think those without this direct experience can take the view that experiences are exaggerated or just untrue.

Firstly, the similarities between the banks and vulture funds. It is next to impossible to deal with anyone who has authority to do anything. There is a lot of incompetence encountered; failures to follow up on commitments, documents going missing, lack of response to queries, the list is endless. Despite having a fairly simple set of procedures the follow (the Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process, or MARP), in mine and other cases I know of, they both had multiple breaches of its provisions (without any consequences, by the way, unlike breaches by borrowers, but that’s another story). Shockingly, they were both capable of telling out-and-out lies and/or fabricating documents.

The overall impression I got was for the day-to-day stuff, there are probably more differences between the different banks than between banks and the servicing agents used by the vulture funds: they were all much the same.

Now, the differences….

On the positive side, the vulture funds are definitely quicker to act, which if you’re in a position to reach a positive outcome is great. This could presumably work against you too if the outcome isn’t going to be positive, so it could also be a negative.

The biggest difference, though, is the vulture funds will not offer any solution that involves them in the long-term, unless you can manage to clear any arrears immediately (in which case the mortgage continues on as originally intended, though with someone other than the original lender now controlling the interest rate for non-tracker mortgages).

MARP sets out a number of alternative repayment arrangements that may be offered. None of these are available, other than anything that offers repayment in a short (e.g. less than two years’) timeframe.



Vulture funds want a return on their investment in a short-time frame. There aren’t that many ways a mortgage can be converted into cash in that time frame:

- Borrower comes up with the cash to buy them out. Unlikely, as it’s next to impossible to get a new mortgage with a history of arrears and if the borrower had the cash they probably wouldn’t be in the situation in the first place.

- A third party comes up with the cash to facilitate the borrower. For example, the Mortgage to Rent scheme: great if it can be made to work, but so far the numbers involved are low, probably because the third party has to be convinced.

- “Voluntary sale”, in which case they lose their home. I put this in quotes, as it’s highly questionable how voluntary it is. Borrowers are put under intense pressure to sell, especially if any negative equity has gone. Don’t get me wrong: if someone is living in a €1m+ house without the means to keep it, I’m not suggesting they should be entitled to stay. However, there are many (most?) who have recovered their position but have no way to clear any arrears in the short-term. They will probably find it impossible to raise a new mortgage, meaning they will have lost the ability to own any home, perhaps for ever.

- Forced sale or repossession, in which case they lose their home.

There may well be other outcomes, but the basic point remains: because of the lack of consideration of long-term solutions, the chances of losing your home are increased.
Click to expand...
Newtothis has just summed it perfectly
 
Carrot/stick said:
Well said newtothis. Finally a balanced point of view based on experience.
Click to expand...

My experience is far from unique: there are many, many cases documented on this site and elsewhere of how it is to deal with both banks and vulture funds when you're in this situation. As I said, unless you've experienced it, reading a lot of these accounts can strike one as exaggerated or not telling the complete story (surely banks don't lie?), but most of them ring absolutely true to me.

I'm one of the lucky ones and have managed to put it behind me, but it was without question the worst five years or so of my life. I can well understand people's health and/or relationships collapsing under the strain. Yes, for sure there are some absolute chancers out there, but I cannot believe the vast majority aren't in the "can't, but more than willing to pay if they can" category. For a lot of them, just when they're at the point of seeing some light at the end of the tunnel with recovering employment and income levels, they're being thrown to the vultures. The government's handling of the whole sorry mess is shameful.
 
I know exactly where your coming from but I have to say I had good dealings with my lender who were polite and courteous in general. Now, two years into a split after recovering from ill health and working full time again I requested a review as my circumstances have changed and was told it doesn't work that way to bring on the warehoused part. The mechanisms aren't there to it. I almost called an ambulance for myself.
 
UptheDeise said:
Karl Deeter gave an interview with WLRFM a couple of weeks back discussing vulture funds and their benefits.
Click to expand...

For some, including me, this is undoubtedly true, as I've already pointed out. They are definitely more responsive and they do offer discounts if you can raise the finance to avail of it, unlike the banks in most circumstances.

It's hard to know for sure, but for most people they are almost certainly worse off dealing with a vulture fund, assuming most people both want to retain their home and cannot raise finance due to their credit history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top