Ross Maguire "strategic default is widespread"

Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
52,300
From today's Examiner

Mortgage crisis resolution must balance competing interests


BORROWERS strategically default when they pay nothing but could pay something or when they choose to pay less than they can reasonably afford.


No figures exist to measure the scale of such default on mortgage loans, but it is widespread.



Whatever way you look at it, the system punishes those that comply while rewarding those that don’t.

Those who will not pay should have their properties repossessed quickly and without fuss.
 
Last edited:
Nice to see Mr Maguires concise way of putting it .

After reasonable expenses = pay what you can on mortgage.
If you don,t = repossession= who could disagree?

For all the posts I have seen on AAM ,I found little flavour to Repo on genuine cases.
It would be a huge help if the leg lifters are sorted from the genuine .
 
Bronte said:
Based on the way we know on here banks have treated customers I'm not a bit surprised people gave up. And what is those in charge doing about it, the Central bank has finally admitted the terrible treatment:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...-in-breach-of-mortgage-arrears-code-1.2260575

And what are they doing about, remembering we are now 10 years in. They might fine them. Look how they have dragged out sorting PTSB.
Click to expand...
Bronte.
I 100% agree with you on Central Bank, Mr Sheridan of Central Bank was on Morning Ireland. It was the FIRST time I have heard him challenged in the way they operated .To call Central Bank a Consumer focussed organisation and to give them air time to spout nothings as your {MIGHT} suggests is a bit like calling Thatcher a Socialist!

I do also have sympathy for those who have lost the will to fight on, but with care these can be put back on track.
The real leg lifters need to be hammered.
 
No arguments with the points raised by Ross Maguire. They are valid and reflect an accurate position of many living in theis "twilight World". His proposed solution is also reasonable with some reservations. I.e the no evictions for those who "pay what they can". Is it realistic to leave people for the rest of their lives in negative equity properties where they can only afford to pay less than the interest on the mortgage? This could be for periods of up to 30/40 years!! Who will carry the cost of this strategy? New SVR mortgagees perhaps!!

While I agree that mass evictions and repossessions are not the answer, there should be a reasonable term given for an unsustainable mortgage to return to sustainability and if not the property should be surrendered or re-possessed!
 
44brendan,

I would think he was giving broad brush strokes .
The points you raise are valid and need teasing out.

eg it may be better on an overall cost to leave someone 30/40 years ,than have them on social housing costs?
No matter where we turn there are pros and cons. Maybe as you say they surrender the house and pay what they can but never ever acquire title ?
I think lets start with the leg-lifters then hard look at what in a stand alone scene are unsustainable.
 
Bronte said:
Based on the way we know on here banks have treated customers I'm not a bit surprised people gave up. And what is those in charge doing about it, the Central bank has finally admitted the terrible treatment:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...-in-breach-of-mortgage-arrears-code-1.2260575

And what are they doing about, remembering we are now 10 years in. They might fine them. Look how they have dragged out sorting PTSB.
Click to expand...

The "Consumer Protection" function should be taken away from the Central Bank.

It has shown that it is incapable of carrying it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top