Would you be prepared to pay higher interest so that people who pay nothing don't get repossessed?

Brian Carey asks this question in the Sunday Times

How many first time buyers would happily lob an extra 1/4% or so onto their mortgage to allow someone who has not paid a cent for fiver years to stay in their home?

...
Nobody seems to draw a line between the priciest mortgages in Europe and a 10 year period of forbearance.

I couldn't have put it better myself, except that it's more like 1% extra and not 1/4% extra.

It all depends Brendan.

If they are nice people doing their best, with photogenic children, then of course I would be delighted. After all they are among the most vulnerable in our society.

If they are overweight hirsute middle aged men. Then, no way! get those scroungers out.

Is this April 1st ?, if so its official, the lunatics have finally taken control of the asylum, another old saying comes to mind, paper never refused ink, seriously, what a daft article.

Palerider said:

Is this April 1st ?, if so its official, the lunatics have finally taken control of the asylum, another old saying comes to mind, paper never refused ink, seriously, what a daft article.

Click to expand...

Why do you think it's a daft article? Genuine question.

Palerider said:

Is this April 1st ?, if so its official, the lunatics have finally taken control of the asylum, another old saying comes to mind, paper never refused ink, seriously, what a daft article.

Click to expand...

It is very strange that you think asking the obvious question, who is going to pay for the defaulters, is a daft idea. Perhaps you could expand on your vision???????? Or do you believe in the magic money tree??????

I don't think people who paid nothing should be helped. In general. But I think where a bank write down would keep someone in the home, avoid legal costs, avoid wasting bank's time (money) sorting things out for year, then yes I'm prepared to pay a bit more.

Particularly where a bank is at fault for having allowed borrowers to borrow too much and sent them out letters with credit card cheques for 10K to spend (reckless credit).

And if it costs less to sort out these mortgages without selling to vulture funds, then I see nothing wrong with that. The banks are mostly to blame for the entire mess. By loaning way too much, by giving everybody overdrafts, by extending overdrafts as though they were samrties to be given out, by giving loans for this that and the other, and increasing limits on credit cards with a flick of a switch.

Anyway I did pay more for defaulters. Whether I agreed to or not.

Badly phrased question... some of those FTBs could be the future defaulters so they may think of it as insurance cover...
Perhaps a 1% discount if you agree to expedited legal default process would be a better proposal.

Bronte said:

I don't think people who paid nothing should be helped. In general. But I think where a bank write down would keep someone in the home, avoid legal costs, avoid wasting bank's time (money) sorting things out for year, then yes I'm prepared to pay a bit more.

Particularly where a bank is at fault for having allowed borrowers to borrow too much and sent them out letters with credit card cheques for 10K to spend (reckless credit).

And if it costs less to sort out these mortgages without selling to vulture funds, then I see nothing wrong with that. The banks are mostly to blame for the entire mess. By loaning way too much, by giving everybody overdrafts, by extending overdrafts as though they were samrties to be given out, by giving loans for this that and the other, and increasing limits on credit cards with a flick of a switch.

Click to expand...

It's over a decade since the bad banking practices you list were commonplace. At some stage, personal responsibility needs to be factored in too.

And the guff over so-called vulture funds needs a dose of reality too. Securitisation and reselling of mortgage books are integral part of mortgage lending.

T McGibney said:

It's over a decade since the bad banking practices you list were commonplace. At some stage, personal responsibility needs to be factored in too.

And the guff over so-called vulture funds needs a dose of reality too. Securitisation and reselling of mortgage books are integral part of mortgage lending.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Personal responsibility seems to be missing!

T McGibney said:

It's over a decade since the bad banking practices you list were commonplace. At some stage, personal responsibility needs to be factored in too.

And the guff over so-called vulture funds needs a dose of reality too. Securitisation and reselling of mortgage books are integral part of mortgage lending.

Click to expand...

We're clearing up the banks bad debts so we can all move on - Yeah
We're selling them to companies who will actually try to get some of this money back - Boo

And lets call them vulture funds as vultures as no one like vultures.

Since the beginning of time money lenders then Banks have factored bad debt into their pricing model, agreed they lost the run of themselves but that lesson is learned for now at least.

As part of our culture those interested in bettering themselves by buying their own home seek out the best mortgage rate available then budget accordingly to give themselves the best property they can get at numbers they can cope with, asking mortgage holders to pay a margin on top of their existing margin to the Bank to allow for future defaulters is a daft idea that in my view requires little in the way of explanation.

The starting point must always be good credit assessment on the lenders behalf using a robust credit assessment and stress tests.

We are already paying similar additional premiums on our car insurance for firms that defaulted.

I borrow the money, I will pay back the money.

I borrow the money, I default, the lender is entitled to get their money back.

The defaulters should pay for their mistakes, a mortgage is a two way contract, the Bank limits its exposure through gearing, asking the applicant for a percentage of the house cost should cover their exposure on say an 80/20 basis for solid borrowers and scaling down as risk increases.

The issue here is that in this country the process of debt recovery is immature especially on private housing stock.

As for vultures, I think they are having a harder time than publicised at getting back a return on any acquired residential portfolio debt.

Palerider said:

We are already paying similar additional premiums on our car insurance for firms that defaulted.

Click to expand...

Agree on almost everything but worth noting that defaulting on motor insurance obligations (ie by evading paying for cover) is a criminal offence routinely punishable by heavy penalties.

T McGibney said:

Agree on almost everything but worth noting that defaulting on motor insurance obligations (ie by evading paying for cover) is a criminal offence routinely punishable by heavy penalties.

Click to expand...

My reference was to firms that defaulted not individuals and the impact of those collapses on innocent consumers, I'm thinking of Quinn Insurance, Setanta, Enterprise Insurance who had 14000 Irish premiums and maybe others I don't recall now. I'm old enough to recall the collapse into State ownership of AIB subsidiary ICI in the 80's where the taxpayer carried that can, my reference was to other innocent consumers carrying the cost of defaults.

Palerider said:

My reference was to firms that defaulted not individuals....

Click to expand...

Indeed. Apologies, I misread it.

Palerider said:

Since the beginning of time money lenders then Banks have factored bad debt into their pricing model

Click to expand...

Of course but surely that's the key point being made in the article.

It's also worth remembering that provisioning for bad debts is very largely based on lenders' historic experience.

Brendan Burgess said:

Nobody seems to draw a line between the priciest mortgages in Europe and a 10 year period of forbearance.

Click to expand...

Nobody seems to draw a line between the priciest mortgages in Europe and the dumbest lending/underwriting practices in Europe by banks in Ireland 10 years ago. Practices that were overseen by clowns in government, even bigger clowns in the Central Bank and a regulator who couldn't regulate a game of Monopoly. The Irish response to this circus was to reward these bozos with massive pensions and a pat on the back for jobs they couldn't do. If the ISI was being used for the purpose it was designed we wouldn't be hearing about vulture funds but at all costs don't give Johnny and Mary a write down, give it to the vulture funds instead.

demoivre said:

but at all costs don't give Johnny and Mary a write down, give it to the vulture funds instead.

Click to expand...

Why on earth should your mortgage costs and mine finance free money for "Johnny and Mary" as you call them, more than a decade after the bad lending/underwriting practices in the banks stopped being commonplace?

demoivre said:

Nobody seems to draw a line between the priciest mortgages in Europe and the dumbest lending/underwriting practices in Europe by banks in Ireland 10 years ago. Practices that were overseen by clowns in government, even bigger clowns in the Central Bank and a regulator who couldn't regulate a game of Monopoly. The Irish response to this circus was to reward these bozos with massive pensions and a pat on the back for jobs they couldn't do. If the ISI was being used for the purpose it was designed we wouldn't be hearing about vulture funds but at all costs don't give Johnny and Mary a write down, give it to the vulture funds instead.

Click to expand...

The Vulture funds have brought fresh capital into the bank. By giving a write down to "Johnny and Mary" how exactly is that helping the capital structure of the bank?

The write down as such is not putting in fresh capital.

It's the exchange of cash for NPLs which brings in fresh capital - improves the capital ratios. What the acquirer does afterwards doesn't matter.

However, the acquirer would not acquire the loan if they could not deal with it through curing it or getting the loan repaid.

Brendan

To answer the question - NO. I wouldn't pay a cent more. If they haven't paid for their home in a number of years then out! I'm already paying too much. What worries me when I see a question like this posed is ' will I get a choice' or is someone thinking of imposing this on mortgage payers. ????