AIG points finger at London branch for nearly bringing the company down.

System

Really2 wrote: »

By saying pointing of fingers 'Westward' (depends if you are facing north or south:)) you kind of forget what the post is about and what they invested in:)

Arf, had to chuckle at this, regardless which way you're facing west is always west, that's kind of the point of a compass

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't disbelieve the 30% figure. But I do disbelieve that we, and the US have such a large gap between us, i.e. ours is a mere 5%.

Something just doesnt sit right there I don't believe, and would love to see actual figures, though that would be extremely hard to gain.

But considering 24% of northern rocks mortgages were over 100% mortgags, HSBC also had a lot (I remember them trying to push me into one) and most other lenders also had them, I can't see it just being 5% here in the UK.

in going back to the point about comparing the US and UK mortgage markets they're was a higher credit risk in relation to the US loans.

the multipliers were higher and given to a more default-risk borrower.
the UK has the above but not comparable.

i've never seen UK sub-prime numbers probably because they're not really classed as that due to them not being anywhere close to the type and nature of US sub-prime debt.

Really2

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Arf, had to chuckle at this, regardless which way you're facing west is always west, that's kind of the point of a compass

Had a blonde moment, thinking the OP was saying we were west as the original thread was pointing out America point the fingure to us, which is east (well at its closest).

Really2

chucky wrote: »

in going back to the point about comparing the US and UK mortgage markets they're was a higher credit risk in relation to the US loans.

the multipliers were higher and given to a more default-risk borrower.
the UK has the above but not comparable.

i've never seen UK sub-prime numbers probably because they're not really classed as that due to them not being anywhere close to the type and nature of US sub-prime debt.

Also under UK law the full amount of the mortgage is recoverable.

US banks were takeing masive hits as owners could walk away debt free.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

in going back to the point about comparing the US and UK mortgage markets they're was a higher credit risk in relation to the US loans.

the multipliers were higher and given to a more default-risk borrower.
the UK has the above but not comparable.

i've never seen UK sub-prime numbers probably because they're not really classed as that due to them not being anywhere close to the type and nature of US sub-prime debt.

Personally, I feel the descriptions of sub prime in the US, and our version, are wildly different. Making it pretty impossible to make comparisons. And if you do make a comparions, because of the differences, they will be favourable to one country.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Personally, I feel the descriptions of sub prime in the US, and our version, are wildly different. Making it pretty impossible to make comparisons. And if you do make a comparions, because of the differences, they will be favourable to one country.

Graham,

The 5% and 30% is based on the Amrican idea of subprime. As I said the person who made the analysis was American.

How can you make our sub-prime to look worse? American subprime as brought down banks in nearly every country.

Cannon_Fodder

http://www.datamonitor.com/Products/Free/Brief/BFFS0661/010BFFS0661.pdf
http://www.datamonitor.com/Products/Free/Report/DMFS2146/020DMFS2146.htm
http://www.marketresearch.com/map/prod/2026322.html

Have to pay a fortune for the full documents, but you can extrapolate some useful figures;


"Gross lending in the UK sub-prime mortgage market is expected to amount to only £6.2 billion in 2008"
"Gross lending in the UK sub-prime mortgage market will fall by 69% in 2008 and by a further 10% in 2009"
"Gross lending for sub-prime mortgages dipped by 18% in 2007"

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Personally, I feel the descriptions of sub prime in the US, and our version, are wildly different. Making it pretty impossible to make comparisons. And if you do make a comparions, because of the differences, they will be favourable to one country.

yes - you're right.
but you knew this already

even this being the case people (especially on your favourite site and even here) still compare the UK and US and keep on saying we're one year beind etc and what is happening there in the housing market will happen here. it won't they're different beasts - there may be similarities but there in no way comparable.

Really2

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

http://www.datamonitor.com/Products/Free/Brief/BFFS0661/010BFFS0661.pdf
http://www.datamonitor.com/Products/Free/Report/DMFS2146/020DMFS2146.htm
http://www.marketresearch.com/map/prod/2026322.html

Have to pay a fortune for the full documents, but you can extrapolate some useful figures;


"Gross lending in the UK sub-prime mortgage market is expected to amount to only £6.2 billion in 2008"
"Gross lending in the UK sub-prime mortgage market will fall by 69% in 2008 and by a further 10% in 2009"
"Gross lending for sub-prime mortgages dipped by 18% in 2007"

UK Mortgage debt is around £1,006,796,000,000:eek: (based on 06 figure)

So I think we can now clear that up that US subprime was massive.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Graham,

The 5% and 30% is based on the Amrican idea of subprime. As I said the person who made the analysis was American.

How can you make our sub-prime to look worse? American subprime as brought down banks in nearly every country.

Well there you go then.

You are talking about excesses in the US. Then stating that our excesses were not as bad. But this is all based on a lending practice that is wildly different, yet we have our own version of it, which you are basically saying doesnt count as it's not the same as what you are talking about.

It is pretty much the same, but it can't be described as sub prime.

But when the sh*t hits the fan, it may aswell be the same, because the sh*t hitting the fan doesnt give a hoot as to what it was described as, and the sh*t has hit the fan, and believe me, we are no better off than the US, no matter how you determine how you look at it.

We LOOK better than the US when you look at figures. But as we have the benefits system, and different governmental practices, such as mortgage releif, and easy bankrupcy, were no better off, and our practices have been no better than sub prime lending.

I just said a load of mixed up twaddle. I undertsand what I mean, sorry if you don't