Mortgages in Negative Equity three times more likely to be in arrears!

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,802
The Central Bank has today published [broken link removed]

This is the bit which I find most useful. It is based on data as of June 2014



This is telling us that 65% of people with PDH mortgages have both performing mortgages and are in positive equity.
20% are performing but are in negative equity.
7% of those with positive equity, are in default.

The ones causing most concern are the 8% who are in both negative equity and arrears.

Since June 2014, the level of arrears has fallen and the house prices are up, so it's likely that the figure of 8% should be lower again.

The data suggest a very high level of strategic default.

In theory, the main issue which should affect your ability to repay your loans is your income. Your Loan to Value should not matter.

But this table suggests that Negative Equity really does matter

9.7% (7%/72%) of those in positive equity are in mortgage arrears.

28.6% (8%/28%) of those in negative equity are in mortgage arrears.

You must make allowance that those in negative equity have larger mortgages and so are probably more likely to be in arrears, but it should not be three times the amount.

Brendan
 
45% of PDH mortgages are on tracker while 65% of Buy to Lets are on trackers.



What I find particularly interesting about this is the default rate is much higher on Buy to Lets, whereas it should be a lot lower as so many are on trackers.

Brendan
 
The average rate for new lending for PDHs is 4.19%
The median Original Loan to Value is 78%
The median balance is €138,000




 
110,000 loans have been restructured. However, most of the "restructuring" was simply rescheduling - interest only, arrears capitalisation and term extension.

Only around 10% were genuine restructurings i.e. split mortgages or interest rate reductions.

 
Brendan Burgess said:
What I find particularly interesting about this is the default rate is much higher on Buy to Lets, whereas it should be a lot lower as so many are on trackers. Brendan
Click to expand...
Not really surprising! majority of BTL borrowings are " casual landlords". I.e. They bought the BTL as a medium term investment with strategy to cash-in when the property appreciated to an acceptable level. Most had at best a marginal repayment ability to meet both their PDH mortgage payments an their BTL repayments. When things got tight, priority was given to meeting HL repayments at expense of BTL loans. They are now caught in the negative equity trap and in many cases the only repayments received on BTL loans is the associated rental income.
 
We have provided for 48% of the value of defaulted loans!

 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-2-25_12-14-55.png
    145.5 KB · Views: 1

Hi brendan

Again, this sounds like strategic default to me.

65% of buy to lets have cheap tracker mortgages. In almost all the cases of cheap trackers I have seen, the rental income covers the full repayment. But I take your point, investors are diverting the rent to pay their other expenses. It's a crazy strategy as they are at risk of losing their cheap tracker as a result.

Brendan
 
I might interest you in buying a parcel of BTL loans Brendan. We have a large number of problem BTL mortgages on our books. In all cases the rental income is well below level required to cover associated P&I repayments. Yes, Dublin located BTL's are now probably an exception. Admittedly I am only privy to the loan book of 1 bank. However, I would imagine that our loan profile is broadly replicated in the books of other banks. They are all on cheap tracker rates but most have significant levels of arrears going back a number of years.
 
We bought a house in 2006 for 310,000 on 100 percent mortgage with a standard SVR.
In 2004, our next door neighbours bought it for 170,000 on 90 percent LTV with tracker.
In 2002, a good friend bought a larger house in the same estate for 100,000 on 90 percent LTV and a tracker mortgage.
It's obvious that the size of the mortgage / high SVR were more important than strategy in determining our fate.
The 'strategic default' argument is a red herring in my opinion / experience and is loved by certain wonderfully altruistic heads of banks who are apparently worried about the taxpayer and the risk of moral hazard (as opposed to their remuneration and pension package).
After all, how many people want to willingly lose their home, destroy their credit rating, lose control of their finances, return to an insecure and volatile rental market after years of home ownership, run the risk of being denied access to a basic bank account, end up in front of a judge for the first time in their lives etc.?
 
Last edited:
Margot Tenembaum said:
It's obvious that the size of the mortgage / high SVR were more important than strategy in determining our fate.
Click to expand...

The size of the mortgage certainly. But it should not account for three times the default rate.

Strangely enough, the stats show that there isn't a huge difference between default rates on SVRs and trackers. I find this hard to understand, but the stats seem to show this. Part of the reason is that people who bought with trackers bought at the top of the market and so have higher mortgages.

Why did you take out an SVR in 2006 and not a tracker?
 
44brendan said:
We have a large number of problem BTL mortgages on our books. In all cases the rental income is well below level required to cover associated P&I repayments. Yes, Dublin located BTL's are now probably an exception.
Click to expand...

I fully understand that for SVRs. But is it the same for trackers?
 
Why did you take out an SVR in 2006 and not a tracker?[/QUOTE]

We asked for a tracker, but were refused on the basis that it was 100 percent mortgage.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
You must make allowance that those in negative equity have larger mortgages and so are probably more likely to be in arrears, but it should not be three times the amount.
Click to expand...
Or maybe it just is; what multiplier would you put on it? If there are so many strategic defaulters then we all should know some; how may AAMers know a strategic defaulter? I don't know any strategic defaulters and I don't know anyone who knows a strategic defaulter.
 
Not something most people would likely admit to!

Karl Deeter has a blog and he interviewed one such Strategic Defaulter last year. Interesting reading.

There's also been a few court cases of people not paying their mortgages but still sending the kids to private schools.

Or the Killiney pensioner couple from a few years back....remember them! All the Socialists ran out to the leafy suburb to camp outside their house and stop the eviction...and then the full news came out of rents being pocketed on a grand scale!
 
And some of these so called strategic defaulters have strategised that they will pay the electricity bill on their principal residence or their car insurance or feed their kids using the rent on their buy to let rather than pay the Bank back money on a property they will lose anyway in the long term.

I call that a bloody good strategy.
 
michaelm said:
If there are so many strategic defaulters then we all should know some; how may AAMers know a strategic defaulter? I don't know any strategic defaulters and I don't know anyone who knows a strategic defaulter.
Click to expand...

I am astonished that you don't know any of these. I have heard the debt campaigners saying the same thing.

Around 20% of those in arrears (it might be a bit lower now) have not submitted an SFS and are paying nothing on their mortgage.

I frequently talk to people who insist on paying their credit union in full instead of paying their mortgage.

I know people who hide their income from their lender.

There are about 600,000 people with home loans.
The vast majority 95% will do their very best to meet their loan repayments.
Around 5% will play the system.
That is about 30,000 people
There are around 70,000 in arrears over 90 days
Probably around half of them are playing the system.
OK, let's say the 5% is too high and it's just 2.5%
That is still around 15,000 or 20% of those in arrears who could be paying a lot more.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I am astonished that you don't know any of these. I have heard the debt campaigners saying the same thing.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm in the minority not knowing any. If strategic default is as prevalent as is suggested in some quarters I'd have expected to personally know someone who is playing the system. Burglary, for example, seems to be prevalent and off the top of my head I personally know at least eight people who have had their home burgled. It's entirely possible that even your lowest guess could be overestimating the issue by a sizable multiple.
 
Hi Michael

We might move in different circles.

I would know about 6 people who have had their homes burgled, but I don't know any burglars. Or I probably know them, but don't know that they are burglars.

I am sure that you know many strategic defaulters, but they are not admitting it to you.

Brendan
 
Strategic defaulters are undoubtedly a % of all defaulters.

I think the word {strategic} is a bit mis-leading.
Some I know , we could class that way, but to me it seems they have more of an Ostrich mentality and have yet to properly accept their predicament.
eg . No holiday, eg ,No Sky TV.
I think they are starting to be forced into a proper sorting.
I am not a Bank fan, but am seeing in many cases acceptable and sustainable solutions being offered.
I think Banks are to a degree being more active and sensible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register