We were happy to take part in a conversation on the Last Word with Matt Cooper about the recent Ulsterbank loan sale, Karl Deeter was there for Irish Mortgage Brokers and Mick Barry TD was also part of the interview.
Financial adviser Karl Deeter told the conference his research puts the non-engagement rate at closer to 80 per cent.
Mr Deeter said the courts are “predisposed” towards borrowers, and that people are given many chances before they lose their homes.
“There’s three magic rules if you want to lose your home: pay zero for a long period of time, don’t engage with your lender – and then don’t show up to court,” he said.
“These three inputs were central to virtually every case of possession we saw.”
Mr Deeter said that according to his research, more than 90 per cent of distressed borrowers who engaged with their lender were able to work out some sort of deal to avoid repossession.
In Ireland we are often publicly coy about saying what we mean, in particular as a person departs or dies the tendency is to wax lyrical when during their time or tenure the opinion a person held wasn’t in line with the following statements.
In our firm we tell it like it is, we say exactly what we mean, no matter what, that is why when you look at the critiques in this article by Colm Kelpie about the departure of Central Bank Governor Patrick Honohan you see that we stick to our guns.
There is nothing fluffy in this…
Karl Deeter, Irish Mortgage Brokers: “Whatever people say about his performance as a governor, on the consumer protection side he oversaw some of the worst regulation in the modern western world, particularly the ban on repossessions, the unworkable code of conduct on mortgage arrears, and the fact that Ireland has a persistent arrears problem unlike any other developed country in the world. They show an unwillingness to deal with some of …
We were very pleased to see a joint paper by Karl Deeter (Irish Mortgage Brokers) and Frank Quinn (Blackrock Further Education Institute) featuring in the 38th Dublin Economics Workshop.
This was Karl’s fourth year in a row presenting at the conference- although this time his presentation was on court statistics in possession hearings, Frank took care of the property paper on his own. Above is a picture from the day.
Further commentary on the court findings will be released soon.
There are two views that have been mentioned recently, one is that bankruptcy should have a reduced term to 1 year and the second is that banks have a veto on insolvency deals.
Perhaps the best way to resolve the issue isn’t to make bankruptcy one year for everybody, but rather to make it one year when and where a bank has rejected an insolvency solution put forward by a personal insolvency practitioner.
This would mean their decision to veto has a negative impact upon them, there are consequences to rejecting genuine offers. Obviously this would require some tweaking because individual cases and circumstances can become quite complex, but it would certainly help a creditor to sharpen their mind if they knew that a refusal could then have worse outcomes without affecting their contractual rights.
The good thing about this is that it would also channel more people into the proper route for dealing with debt (the official regulated insolvency one) and keep them out of what will probably become a scandal some day in the future (the informal channel …
On talking Money on the 24th of November we looked at the issue of mortgage arrears and the role of the Insolvency Service in terms of finding ways to get solutions with guaranteed end dates. There is a mismatch between the goal of banks and borrowers and it is resulting in solutions that often don’t work.
Cormac Lucey looked at the deplorable state of how we managed the mortgage crisis in the Sunday Times, the clippings are below.
The piece talks about the countless regulatory failures we have endured, and that we did this despite knowing there were better options available.
When you make it nigh impossible to do the right things, it’s no surprise that you get the wrong outcomes.
The panel on this weeks Savage Sunday was Tony Williams, Kate Shanahan and Karl Deeter. The topics were Priory Hall, in particular KBC writing to a recently widowed debtor seeking arrears payments, politics, mortgages and property, Ivan Yates and finishing off with some thoughts on Ryan Air.
(this article originally appeared in the Sunday Business Post on the 8th of September 2013) The term ‘strategic default’ lacks a definition. Because of this, any debate that incorporates this term is, in part, pointless. Discussing something so undefined can only end in disagreement if the topic is entirely subjective. There are those who refuse to accept it exists, just as there were those who once refused to believe the world is round. Many continue to insist that, in pretty much all circumstances, borrowers are innocent.
They aren’t, just as the banks are not innocent either. As a day-to-day practitioner, I know that strategic default is real. I have seen it, dealt with it, made money on the back of advising people doing it and continue to do so. People hire guys like me to push back against banks like ours.
Some attempt must be made to determine what does and doesn’t constitute a strategic default. A failure to do so means we face a double dilemma. The first is to turn the national debate into one focused on the …