I wonder how the comparison works if you take out the subprime lenders. This is from Namawinelake in 2009:
Residential Mortgage Arrears, Restructures and Repossessions
Hopefully someone can confirm this but say you have a mortgage of 1000 a month, and you only pay 500 for two months, are you then one month in arrears or two months according to the stats?
I would assume 2 months.
1000 arrears plus interest
months in arrears = accumulated amount not paid / required payment per month
1000/1000 = 1 month in arrears
I thought it was like this:
01/2010 - €1000 payment
02/2010 - €1000 payment
03/2010 - €1000 payment
04/2010 - €1000 payment
05/2010 - Missed payment
06/2010 - €1000 payment : 1 month in arrears
07/2010 - €1000 payment : 2 month in arrears
08/2010 - €1000 payment : 3 month in arrears
09/2010 - €1000 payment : 4 month in arrears
10/2010 - €1000 payment : 5 month in arrears
11/2010 - €1000 payment : 6 month in arrears
12/2010 - €1000 payment : 7 month in arrears
So the above mortgages has been in the arrears status for 7 months, but the mortgage holder is only €1000 behind.
You could get the mortgage stats for the total arrears value and work out the average mortgage payment to find the average number of months behind people are. Pretty useless info imo.
More commentary in the IT based on the notion that people can’t be put out of the homes because they’d automatically become vagrants…
Khards – no that is not the meaning of months in arrears. It is what I showed in the previous reply.
Come on people - time to hit the comments section. If every pinster comments on this at least the message will be heard.
This very same point was made on TV3 last night (Vincent Browne show hosted by Sam Smyth). Apparently 24,000 properties are in arrears in excess of 2 years, and ‘sure, ye couldn’t put them all out on the street, and imagine what 24,000 homes coming on the market would do to prices!?’
If this stupidity isn’t brought to an end soon then only complete idiots are going to pay their mortgages.
+1. Am starting to see comments over on AAM from people with good salaries, and enough cash to pay off their mortgage, who don’t want to pay the negative equity part “because we bailed out the banks”.
It’s a great little country alright:
You can live rent/mortgage free for two years or more.
You can object to paying the ‘Negative Equity’ portion of your mortgage.
How come this does not work with loans for anything else - know anyone driving around in a free car for two years (maybe a few celebrity endorsers, mind!) or baulking at full payment because of depreciation?
The dispossessed will just have to go back to the Ma and Da, probably never should have been let out in the first place!
From RTE this morning 
Honestly the country is doomed if the masses take on the view that is bad to take things from people who don’t pay for them.
It happens with cars - people use the rules to hand back cars under the half payment rule, people don’t pay car loans/leases and wait for the 2 years banks take to catch up with them, people don’t pay credit cards, TV licence, VAT on stuff they buy on the internet, the property charge
People do what they can get away with.
I think people on here are annoyed because everything is not happening they way the textbooks said it should and people can buy the mythical SCD family home for 50p.
There will be repossessions, there will be deals done, there will be write offs but no bank is going to cause a collapse in the asset value of its own security if it can avoid doing so so all of this is going to take place over time and at a relatively slow rate.
I sense a frustration because age profile means people cannot wait forever to buy that family home and are not happy that things are happening slower than would suit them.
You’re repeating this point on various threads. I can only assume you’re looking for a particular response?
By textbooks, do you mean “the law”?
AFAIK cars are generally bought with non-recourse finance. Houses are not.
If this attidude continues the country is fooked. Why would anyone pay a debt if they don’t have to?
The other side is unless there are consequences default levels will rocket - “me too ism” will take hold.
The banks have to take action to stop the rot. There is now no downside to stopping paying. This will start a new crisis.
So, who is commenting on this on the IT link…seems the tin foil hat crowd so far.
If the arrears continues long enough some of the distressed borrowers will be able to claim squatter rights. There’s a thought for ya
Banks take action? New Crisis? What are you talking about… there is no new crisis. It’s the same one. Nothing has changed.
I dunno know, look on the bright side Irish banks capital deposits should be seeing an increase with all this extra money sloshing around no?
Same crisis indeed.
I seem to recall Morgan the Merciless making this very point a year and a half or so ago. The Pioneers (as it were) of mortgage default (can’t or won’t pay) argue the righteousness of their position (with which I have a certain amount of sympathy). This sparks the interest of the next tier of folk (can pay - but with pain / wouldn’t pay if they thought they could get away with it but are taking a wait and see approach).
If you’re not careful (and I don’t have a lot of faith in those who manage such things) you reach a tipping point and the floodgates open. Folk are well aware of the overwhelming effect of a crowd on the move