GG's solution

PasturesNew

I never vote.
None of them ever do anything for single, working people, except take more from us.
So bugg4h the lot of them.

neverdespairgirl

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

1. Force lenders to offer a deal that costs no more than BofE BR+1% (and no fees) to any borrower who comes to the end of a fixed rate and who has not missed a payment.

Why?

<wibble to make up the numbers>

Rover

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

They will probably chase the market down and will sell cheaply as a last resort when they are desperate. I don't like any decent human being being desperate.
GG

A great proportion will do just that GG. Not the buyers fault, blame the orchestrators of the bubble. Who will, like Applegarth, be holidaying in Barbados despite their appauling judgement, greed and short sightedness.

Gorgeous_George

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Why?

<wibble to make up the numbers>

It is simply wrong to force people to move to Northern Rock's SVR (at 7.49%) when NR are jointly responsible for the mess that the borrower finds himself in.

With LTVs created by lax lending (and incompetent borrowing), some borrowers cannot choose a different deal. These are the people least likely to be able to afford the higher rates.

It would be better to keep people in their homes, paying what they can afford and at a rate that the lender can accommodate (Rather than pump billions into the economy, guaranteeing 20%, 30% of people's mortgages would ease the pain). The only option for many borrowers is repossession and bankruptcy leaving the tax payer/other customers to fund the bankruptcy and provide social accommodation. It must be cheaper to keep them in their homes.

GG

Realy

PasturesNew wrote: »

I never vote.
None of them ever do anything for single, working people, except take more from us.
So bugg4h the lot of them.

You may as well as one party may take more than another.
I agree it is rubbish when you are single, but when you settle down you sort of except it. (PS beer expenditure goes down;) )

going2die_rich

What Lenders would stick around for conditions like that? They'd simply move their money abroad and lend else where. It's a global market, so you can't just make any demand you want else they will walk.

ad9898_3

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

It is simply wrong to force people to move to Northern Rock's SVR (at 7.49%) when NR are jointly responsible for the mess that the borrower finds himself in.

GG

NR are no more, they are bust, the government is NR, its the government that are 'forcing people to NR's SVR' , so they should, they need to make back the money that 'we' as taxpayers have loaned them.

going2die_rich

Realy wrote: »

How about troubled banks are forced to sign their assets over to the goverment (EG comercial property etc) in return for funds and they have to rent or buy them back. (see how they like it.)

Your plan would lead to a huge share sell off which would drop the bank under the water anyway.

They wouldn't do that anyway, when the directors could simply chose to sell the bank off to bigger bank, get their big pay off and let all the normal staff get made redundant.

hoggums

If I were a bank and no 1. became law then I would pull out of the mortgage market altogether as it would no longer be profitable.

The BofE rate has nothing to do with mortgage rates - it's the LIBOR rates which determine mortgage rates. What you are suggesting would mean it would cost the banks more paying LIBOR than it recieves from the customer.

It's time to face up to reality GG - people aren't going to be able to sell their house for what they paid for it - they are going to have to take a loss or stay put for a very long time.

Gorgeous_George

The banks ae jointly resposnsible and the argument that they would simply move abroad is as poor as saying ht taxing fatcats more would lead to a brain drain.

GG