36,438 residential mortgages are in arrears, 387 homes repossessed in 12 months

Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,249
Website
www.politics.ie
Twitter
davidcochrane
The Central Bank and Financial Regulator has published figures that show that 387 residential properties were repossessed in the 12 months to the end of June 2010. 36,438 residential mortgages have been in arrears for more than 90 days.

According to the central bank, there are over 789,000 private residential mortgages held in Ireland to the value of €118 billion.
 


Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,249
Website
www.politics.ie
Twitter
davidcochrane
As at end June 2010, 36,438 mortgage accounts, or 4.6%, were in arrears for more than 90
days of which 24,797, or 3.14% of the total mortgage accounts, were more than 180 days in
arrears. By value €6.9 billion was owed in relation to all accounts more than 90 days in
arrears of which €4.8 billion was owed for accounts more than 180 days in arrears. Mortgage
accounts in arrears for more than 90 days increased by 12.74% since the end of March 2010.
There was little change in the number of formal demands outstanding which have been issued
by mortgage lenders with the total number outstanding remaining at nearly 5,500. In these
cases the level of arrears amounts to €84.48 million on outstanding mortgages totalling just
over €1.16 billion. There was also a further decrease in the level of outstanding arrears cases
where court proceedings had been issued to enforce the debt/security on the mortgage. At the
end of June 2010 there were 3,023 of such cases which is a decrease of 1.75% since end of
March 2010. In these cases the level of arrears amounted to €96.9 million on outstanding
mortgages totalling €672 million.
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
The number of repossessions is understated as the figure is court repossessions as opposed to arrangements between the banks and delinquent customers.
5% of all mortgages being badly in appears is very bad news for them, the banks and the economy.
 

Asparagus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
4,823
and how many are between 30 and 90 days in arrears?

so far 36k probably affects 100,000 people. Most of whom will never work again in this country and will either emigrate or live on social welfare.

Debt Forgiveness / state debt swap for equity has got to be on the table for the next government.
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
33,861
One would imagine a lot of these are not under immediate risk owing to the presence of mortgage protection insurance on many of the loans. Such companies are somewhat reluctant to pay out though.
 

Asparagus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
4,823
One would imagine a lot of these are not under immediate risk owing to the presence of mortgage protection insurance on many of the loans. Such companies are somewhat reluctant to pay out though.
if they are in arrears then the mortgage protection has expired - no?
 

HanleyS

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
815
How many mortgages are being supported by welfare?
Does this include mortgages on a payment plan?
Does this include interest only mortgages? (restructured to interest only)
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
33,861
if they are in arrears then the mortgage protection has expired - no?
In some cases. In others the companies offering may be a but slow to pay and agreements can be made between banks and mortgage holders... dunno if that would be included or not.
 

Samell

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
1,099
I bet none of the 36,438 are the homes of bankers or developers.
If you bought 1 house the banks and government will hound you, buy 10 houses and they will not really bother you! When I see Seanie Fitz evicted I may be happy. This shower coulden't organise a piss up in a brewery.
 

b.a. baracus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,203
and how many are between 30 and 90 days in arrears?

so far 36k probably affects 100,000 people. Most of whom will never work again in this country and will either emigrate or live on social welfare.

Debt Forgiveness / state debt swap for equity has got to be on the table for the next government.
Somebody has to pay the debt. It's either the person with the house or the wider taxpayer. Why should I (a renter) pay to support somebody to remain in a house they cannot afford? Maybe I should go out now and spend 600k on a house I can't afford - sure the taxpayer will pick up the tab when I can't make the repayments and I get to live in Blackrock. Ever heard of moral hazard?

A real solution would be to reform the bankruptcy laws so that people who will never be able to afford to pay for the homes that they currently live in will be permitted to surrender them in a structured and dignified way. They can then rent a house at a much lower cost and perhaps re-enter the market when their period of bankruptcy is declared over.
 

Asparagus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
4,823
How many mortgages are being supported by welfare?
Does this include mortgages on a payment plan?
Does this include interest only mortgages? (restructured to interest only)
No
probably - if debt is running up arrears despite payment agreement
No

I'd say every mortgage taken out by a non public servant since 2003 is vulnerable.
And ones that were taken out by young married PS workers that over extended and hadn't stress tested a couple of kids into their calculations are vulnerable too.
And ones where PS used equity in their home to fund second homes and now the negative equity is dwarfing both investments,


7 accountants got made redundant out of the blue in my office today - 3 will be hired back on lower salaries.
i work in one of the traditionally believed recession proof industries.
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
33,861
I bet none of the 36,438 are the homes of bankers or developers.
If you bought 1 house the banks and government will hound you, buy 10 houses and they will not really bother you! When I see Seanie Fitz evicted I may be happy. This shower coulden't organise a piss up in a brewery.
Is his mortgage in arrears?
 

greengoose2

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
24,897
So this is the product of turning the corner. I have nothing but contempt for politicians at this point. They are trying to collect water with a sieve. The economy is in tatters, NAMA is guzzling all the money and these issues don't seem to get considered.

We are broke. They blew the phantom boom, thank you Bertie, Charlie and Brian. The country is a basket case. Let's remind the fool who pretends to be Taoiseach of his election speeches when he claimed that the country was AWASH WITH MONEY.

If it wasn't so sad it might be funny. Let's remind the fool of his Dail speech when he said he would run the country his way. And let's remind any moron who ever votes FF or Green again of their stupidity!
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
3,566
Somebody has to pay the debt. It's either the person with the house or the wider taxpayer. Why should I (a renter) pay to support somebody to remain in a house they cannot afford? Maybe I should go out now and spend 600k on a house I can't afford - sure the taxpayer will pick up the tab when I can't make the repayments and I get to live in Blackrock. Ever heard of moral hazard?

A real solution would be to reform the bankruptcy laws so that people who will never be able to afford to pay for the homes that they currently live in will be permitted to surrender them in a structured and dignified way. They can then rent a house at a much lower cost and perhaps re-enter the market when their period of bankruptcy is declared over.

+1

It really is high time we sorted out our bankruptcy laws.

Another idea might be for the banks to take back homes but then rent them out to thwe homeowner such as the councils do for tennants who can no longer afford their purchased council home.
 

Asparagus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
4,823
Somebody has to pay the debt. It's either the person with the house or the wider taxpayer. Why should I (a renter) pay to support somebody to remain in a house they cannot afford? Maybe I should go out now and spend 600k on a house I can't afford - sure the taxpayer will pick up the tab when I can't make the repayments and I get to live in Blackrock. Ever heard of moral hazard?

A real solution would be to reform the bankruptcy laws so that people who will never be able to afford to pay for the homes that they currently live in will be permitted to surrender them in a structured and dignified way. They can then rent a house at a much lower cost and perhaps re-enter the market when their period of bankruptcy is declared over.

Good question. Lets look at the moral hazard and the practicality of it all.

Lets say though that there is no debt forgiveness and that 5.5billion euros of mortgages default this year.
Who will pay that?
the taxpayer in the form of a bail out.
now you have 36000 families on the street - what do you do with them? Social Housing - costing say 100,000 a family thats 3.6 billion
now as they will be pursued for the rest of their lives for any shortfall in their debt the will proabably choose to not work meaning you have 72000 people permanently on the dole regardless of an upswing in the economy

Immediate cost 5.5 Billion
Longterm cost 3.6 billion plus 14million per week for say 20 years 1.5billion

social cost - incalculable

now say that you help these people somewhat and inject a forgiveness of 2 billion in to the struggling mortgages.
swap forgiveness for equity which must be paid on sale of inheritance of property
People will be able to breathe and when a recovery comes they will be able to participate in it.

Immediate cost 2 billion
Longterm benefit - - 2 billion plus x billion tax take rather than social welfare payment

Do you know what moral hazard means? It means that there is a danger that decisions taken by people are different because they know they are uinsulated from risk - i contend that nobody bought a house in ireland with the thought of a bailout in mind.
Anyway moral hazard is irrelevant given a situation where the government is colluding with the banks to create and sustain high property prices.
In a country where the government is committed to pouring billions into anglo.

Are you happy for a minimum of 100,000 men women and children to lose their homes and all teh consequences that that would bring.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top