Negative Equity

beecher

You need £26,000 to have an LTV of 90% I think.

The responsibility for this is with everyone who fuelled high house prices, who boasted about their equity and who treated it as real wealth. Presumably you made a lot of money on the house you sold before you bought this one?

The government loved the fact that people thought they were rich - if people hadn't been dazzled by this paper money they would've seen through it all. So I think everyone who believed the hype is to blame.

RecoveringAlcoholic

And The Fat Cats Just Get Fatter.

Gorgeous_George

The 'winners' have been those who sold to rent, sold to downsize, sold an inherited property, the rich who saw there taxes slashed, mortgage brokers who didn't exist pre-HPI, solicitors, estate agents.

As with any boom, it is those who bought in just as the peak was reached who win least/lose most. It is their fault because it is them that bought at the wrong time. Call it bad luck if you like - I don't.

Be happy. An SVR of 4.69% would have been unheard of uinder the Tories. It's not the end of the world. Overpay and that £50K or whatever will eventually be much less. When eating an elephant, do so in small chunks.

Keep your fingers crossed that interest rates remain low for some considerable time. If not, maybe inflation will nibble away at the elephant.

Remember, so many people are worse off than you - and often through no fault of their own. And without a Government willing to help.

GG

silvercar

"There's always somebody who is paid too much, and taxed too little - and it's always somebody else."
- Cullen Hightower

chrisclipson

MACDONALDO67 - I agree that it's not your fault, but it's not anyone else's fault either surely? It's just one of those things, but I'm not quite sure why you sound so angry or panicky:
1. The SVR you are on must surely be as low if not lower than your fix was?
2. Interest rates have only been brought down so far because house prices fell. Logically they will only go up again once house prices recover, so you should be able to get a new fix then if you still want one.
In the meantime, enjoy the fact that your SVR is so low, and that you have a house with no danger of repossession. Where's the (real) problem?

ILW

chrisclipson wrote: »

2. Interest rates have only been brought down so far because house prices fell. Logically they will only go up again once house prices recover,

This is just not true. In the last big crash (92/93) house prices fell by about 25% and interest rates went up to around 14%. What makes you think prices are in any way linked to interest rates?

Gorgeous_George

Prices WERE linked to interest rates.

The Tories used to lower rates about 6 months before an election. The feel good factor won them another term and within months rates rose again. They stopped doing this in 1997 and lost.

This Government handed control of the bank base rate to the Bank of England. Probably seemed a good idea at the time - before we found out that bankers are ?ankers.



GG

chrisclipson

ILW wrote: »

This is just not true. In the last big crash (92/93) house prices fell by about 25% and interest rates went up to around 14%. What makes you think prices are in any way linked to interest rates?

They weren't then -they were under government control to play with as they wish - see the previous post for the results. Now though that they are controlled by the BoE, they go up when inflation looks like a threat, and down when prices are falling.

b0rker

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

The 'winners' have been those who sold to rent, sold to downsize, sold an inherited property, the rich who saw there taxes slashed, mortgage brokers who didn't exist pre-HPI, solicitors, estate agents.

As with any boom, it is those who bought in just as the peak was reached who win least/lose most. It is their fault because it is them that bought at the wrong time. Call it bad luck if you like - I don't.

Are you suggesting that the OP should have been super cautious and sold to rent in 2002 like some on the HPC site?

If you are not suggesting that he should have done that then you are suggesting that he ought to be in posession of a crystal ball to ensure that he was able to forsee the top of the market.

Say the market started to look a bit over inflated in 2002. What year would you suggest that he should have sold in?

2002?
2003?
2004?
2005?
2006?
Early 2007?

If you can suggest one of these years then can you specify exactly how the op was supposed to know that?

My personal reccomendation would have been early 2007 (the top of the market) funnily enough. As to how the hell the op was supposed to know that the bubble would burst then and not in say 2015 would explain why some people STR in 2002.

I wonder if those who STR in 2002 are as obviously annoyed as our OP?

Judging by some of the bitter people on the HPC site I would guess they are more annoyed....

silvercar

I wonder if those who STR in 2002 are as obviously annoyed as our OP?

But they gambled as much as anyone else, only difference is they gambled with their home.

What probably annoys them more than anything is the governments attempts to help hold house prices (mortgage interest payments for those hit by the downturn, stamp duty help), meaning that the lowest point is pushed further out.

Having been living in rented since 2002 (worst case that would 14 rental moves!) they must be gagging to own their own home and would have preferred a short sharp drop to a long drawn out gradual decrease.

The fact that the low interest rates means that renting is possibly more expensive than owning is another bitter pill to swallow.