Ulster Bank sells 5,200 mortgages to Cerberus

Blackrock1 said:
does it really matter though if its genuine or cynical, if someone is in 7 years arrears its probably not going to be resolved.
Click to expand...

They could have got from 50k in arrears and now 5k in arrears.
They might have 5k in arrears and paying it back at a very slow rate.
They might have never paid anything and have arrears of 100k.

All the above might inherit something, or have other property, that could clear the debt. How are we to know.
They might have string of other properties all in arrears.

I'm not making a judgement call on if they should be moved or not.
Some people have had their mortgage moved from the bank (not this one) to somewhere else when they've never been arrears at all.
I don't think we can take any figures from a bank, or the Garda for that matter, at face value. They've been found to be unreliable too often.

These figures seem shaped for media consumption, not critical analysis.
 
AlbacoreA said:
Some people have had their mortgage moved from the bank (not this one) to somewhere else when they've never been arrears at all.
Click to expand...

So what?

Bank of Scotland and Danske closed down their operation in Ireland and sold their mortgages to the highest bidder.

People who were never in arrears were not negatively impacted. Their contract remains the exact same.

In fact, there is potential upside in that the new owner might do a deal for the early repayment of a tracker.

Brendan
 
I meant other banks have said they were only moving non performing mortgages when that wasn't the case.
There's just a lack of transparency. That's either just sloppy or just done deliberately. Perhaps both.

Are there existing clauses in a contact that allow the lender to makes changes, that are unlikely to be auctioned by a bank, but perhaps are more likely with other lenders.
 
Last edited:
Hi Albacore

The mortgage contract allows the lender to sell the mortgage.

If a performing mortgage is sold, the borrower has nothing at all to worry about. The contract still applies. For example, if they have a tracker mortgage, they keep it.

There is a lot of scaremongering going on. The only people who need to worry are those who haven't engaged and who haven't paid anything, and it's about time that they began to worry.

Brendan
 
I'm not explaining myself, well, I mean that the contract itself might have clauses in it, that can be used in an unfair manner.
Not that they have been used in ireland in this way, thus far, and I'm not aware of any successful case in Ireland. But a different lender might have a different viewpoint on it.

https://www.lawsociety.ie/News/News/Stories/price-variation-clauses--an-unfair-term/#.W3LqVc5KiUk
[broken link removed]

That said a lot (perhaps not all) of the mortgages being transferred are probably never going to come out of arrears.
But if you had one that wasn't in arrears then you can see why those people might be concerned. Even if in reality its unlikely any of their fears would be realised.
 
Persons not in arrears have nothing to be concerned about if their mortgage is sold, they may even benefit.

Persons in arrears should be concerned.

This Bank like any Bank is not a registered charity, some people think they are.

We should not expect them to open up to anybody with confidential information on a person by person basis.

Banks have spent millions staffing up new sections to try and cope with the arrears problems, all in a highly regulated environment and with little success through the judicial process at recovering the sums owing from the worst cases.

Prior to 2008 no such section of a Bank existed in this country, yes there were Recoveries sections but nothing like the staff scale up that has been required to deal with mortgages arrears, enough is enough, like any business they need capital, they are fed up of the costs incurred, the regulation and deliberate defaulters, Vulture funds help the Banks recapitalise somewhat so they can draw a line under what is in our country a mess.
They provide a stop loss on the continued draw on their reserves and will have fresh capital to provide loans to good payers, small business owners, the self employed, farmers, etc etc, access to capital is not a bottomless pit, new money buys new goods.

I'm a tad old fashioned, If I borrow money I pay it back, if that takes three minimum wage jobs, no holidays and tight balancing of the books then so be it, my home is my castle and I will work my backside off to keep it.

There will be hardships cases which can be dealt with on a case by case basis but one only has to see the increase in traffic on all roads nationally, the help wanted signs in windows and the increase in recruitment and jobs advertising to understand that our economy is booming. In many cases the hardcore defaulters are continuing their lifestyle hoping somebody will bail them out, the gig is up for them and rightly so.
 
Last edited:
Brendan Burgess said:
If a performing mortgage is sold, the borrower has nothing at all to worry about. The contract still applies. For example, if they have a tracker mortgage, they keep it.

There is a lot of scaremongering going on. The only people who need to worry are those who haven't engaged and who haven't paid anything, and it's about time that they began to worry.
Click to expand...

It's just naïve to say that because none of the terms of the contract have changed you've nothing to worry about. It matters a lot who the other party to the contract is.
 
What's to stop a vulture fund simply raising the interest rate on a performing svr mortgage? People are absolutely right to be concerned about these sales. Whether performing or not.
 
Carrot/stick said:
What's to stop a vulture fund simply raising the interest rate on a performing svr mortgage? People are absolutely right to be concerned about these sales. Whether performing or not.
Click to expand...
You can move bank in that scenario.

Could you give us examples of your scenario?
 
AlbacoreA said:
Maybe they have a long term illness. Maybe they had to look after sick children or parents.
I like the way we jump to the conclusion that they are all hard core non payers, non-engaging borrowers.

Hard core non payers, non-engaging borrowers obvious are part of this. But if they have 3~4 average forbearance agreements.
There is an absence of any information of how many make regular payments even if they have missed a lot.

Seems like the information is filtered to only telling half the story here.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that if you have a long term illness or have to take care of ill relatives that means a bank should not be entitied to have you pay your mortgage?
 
Quite simply they just want to make more fom the loan book and decide to simply raise the interest rate? Someone could have prioritised their mortgage over an unsecured debt and would not be in a position to change lender. I'm no financial guru by the way.
 
Bronte said:
Are you suggesting that if you have a long term illness or have to take care of ill relatives that means a bank should not be entitied to have you pay your mortgage?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not, that's what "marp" is for. It is non engagement that is the problem not illness in such a situation.
 
Palerider said:
Persons not in arrears have nothing to be concerned about if their mortgage is sold, they may even benefit.

Persons in arrears should be concerned.

This Bank like any Bank is not a registered charity, some people think they are.

We should not expect them to open up to anybody with confidential information on a person by person basis.

Banks have spent millions staffing up new sections to try and cope with the arrears problems, all in a highly regulated environment and with little success through the judicial process at recovering the sums owing from the worst cases.

Prior to 2008 no such section of a Bank existed in this country, yes there were Recoveries sections but nothing like the staff scale up that has been required to deal with mortgages arrears, enough is enough, like any business they need capital, they are fed up of the costs incurred, the regulation and deliberate defaulters, Vulture funds help the Banks recapitalise somewhat so they can draw a line under what is in our country a mess.
They provide a stop loss on the continued draw on their reserves and will have fresh capital to provide loans to good payers, small business owners, the self employed, farmers, etc etc, access to capital is not a bottomless pit, new money buys new goods.

I'm a tad old fashioned, If I borrow money I pay it back, if that takes three minimum wage jobs, no holidays and tight balancing of the books then so be it, my home is my castle and I will work my backside off to keep it.

There will be hardships cases which can be dealt with on a case by case basis but one only has to see the increase in traffic on all roads nationally, the help wanted signs in windows and the increase in recruitment and jobs advertising to understand that our economy is booming. In many cases the hardcore defaulters are continuing their lifestyle hoping somebody will bail them out, the gig is up for them and rightly so.
Click to expand...
If your talking about vulture funds saying "this bank like any bank is not a registered charity" you might want to look again I think they might actually be registered the same/similar to charities(I stand to be corrected on this and would like to know what they are registered as). I do however agree with the bulk of what you said palerider.
 
Last edited:
Carrot/stick said:
What's to stop a vulture fund simply raising the interest rate on a performing svr mortgage? People are absolutely right to be concerned about these sales. Whether performing or not.
Click to expand...

The same thing applies to normal banks. So what?
 
Carrot/stick said:
Quite simply they just want to make more fom the loan book and decide to simply raise the interest rate? Someone could have prioritised their mortgage over an unsecured debt and would not be in a position to change lender. I'm no financial guru by the way.
Click to expand...

Again, can you give an example of such a scenario?
 
Carrot/stick said:
What's to stop a vulture fund simply raising the interest rate on a performing svr mortgage? People are absolutely right to be concerned about these sales. Whether performing or not.
Click to expand...

Go on, give us a real example of why people who abide by their mortgage contracts should be worried? You keep hinting at scary possibilities but you have yet to give us a concrete example of one.
 
Bronte said:
The same thing applies to normal banks. So what?
Click to expand...

Hi Bronte

In theory, there is nothing to stop AIB raising their mortgage rates to 10%. But if they do, they will lose all the mortgages which can move which is probably about 80% of them.

If Tanager increases the rate to 10% in the morning, the majority of their borrowers could do nothing about it.

Obviously, those on trackers are not affected. But those on non-tracker mortgages are vulnerable.

Brendan
 
If any bank raised it's rates like that people would be unable to repay their loans, property would collapse in value and the banks would go bust again.

It would be chaos. Is it likely that a vulture fund would hike mortgage rates, have they done it anywhere else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top