The Four Horseman of the BTL Apocalypse.

julieq

Cheap shot, well executed Nearlynew.

ad9898_3

julieq wrote: »

But high multiple customers were cherry picked, and there's no real indication in terms of repossessions rates that the faith placed in them was misplaced.

How can you know this ? Halifax, Bradford & Bingley among others have admiited that for a significant portion of their loan book they didn't even know what people earned, they just gave them what they asked for. As far as repo's are concerned, people on even mediocre salaries could keep up repayments on a 200k mortgage with SVR's and trackers in between 0% and 3.5%. It's not what happens now it's what happens later.

julieq

It's like arguing with a religious cult here sometimes. You make a lot of points (most of my points relate to one of my hobby horses which is the intemperate use of language to create an impression not backed up by factual evidence), back up the argument with logic and argument, and all that comes back is a glazed expression and a confident explanation that we're sitting in the bull trap at the gates of the end of the world.

The bears are now facing the problem all fixed belief systems face, which is that events eventually start moving against what they believe.

System

julieq wrote: »

It's like arguing with a religious cult here sometimes. You make a lot of points (most of my points relate to one of my hobby horses which is the intemperate use of language to create an impression not backed up by factual evidence), back up the argument with logic and argument, and all that comes back is a glazed expression and a confident explanation that we're sitting in the bull trap at the gates of the end of the world.

Nicely written!

You appear to have the patience of a saint in these debates, I tip my hat

ad9898_3

julieq wrote: »

It's like arguing with a religious cult here sometimes. You make a lot of points (most of my points relate to one of my hobby horses which is the intemperate use of language to create an impression not backed up by factual evidence), back up the argument with logic and argument, and all that comes back is a glazed expression

What a bit like you did here......

julieq wrote: »

There's no real basis for worrying about energy cost increases based on declining supply either. Worst case is we are cold in the winters and drive less, which is as things have been for about 1800 of the last 2000 years. There will be opportunities to fix the problem using different technologies which are more trouble than they're worth when there is cheap oil about.

Oh don't worry everything will be fine because..... erm...er...well it just will, technology will save us. On a current factual basis you can show me nothing that will deliver grid level energy to 6 billion people or can you ? go on, show me some logic and facts.

julieq

From the article

In a speech, Pain said a key problem was that lenders stopped verifying income when considering home loan applications. He said that in 2007, 45% of all mortgages were made without a check on the stated income. "Many of the specialist lenders heavily marketed and sold self-certified products, and a large percentage of these have led to correspondingly high levels of arrears and fraud," he said

From this can be logically inferred:

Less than 45% of all mortgages were not checked.
Of this 45% a percentage (not stated) were self certified
Of this percentage some applications were fraudulent
Of the fraudulent percentage some have led to arrears

But looking at it the impression given is that 45% of all mortgages during the boom are likely to be liar loans and fraudulent.

You can probably pick over some of the numbers in the public domain to work out some of the percentages, but sticking in a value of 10% for fraudulent applications which seems reasonable, since most people do assume their application will be checked, you have 4.5% of the market is fraudulent. If 50% of these lead to arrears you have 2.25% of the market in arrears.

Not the stuff of apocalypse. Which is why we have no apocalyse.

(Yes, I know, we're in the bull trap. MOOOOOO)

julieq

ad9898 wrote: »

What a bit like you did here......




Oh don't worry everything will be fine because..... erm...er...well it just will, technology will save us. On a current factual basis you can show me nothing that will deliver grid level energy to 6 billion people or can you ? go on, show me some logic and facts.

Nuclear fission will do it. Local solar energy is enough in parts of the world, particularly the poorer bits. But the point is that people adapt to different circumstances. Up until the 1960s no-one even expected global grid level energy.

ad9898_3

julieq wrote: »

From the article



From this can be logically inferred:

Less than 45% of all mortgages were not checked.
Of this 45% a percentage (not stated) were self certified
Of this percentage some applications were fraudulent
Of the fraudulent percentage some have led to arrears

But looking at it the impression given is that 45% of all mortgages during the boom are likely to be liar loans and fraudulent.

You can probably pick over some of the numbers in the public domain to work out some of the percentages, but sticking in a value of 10% for fraudulent applications which seems reasonable, since most people do assume their application will be checked, you have 4.5% of the market is fraudulent. If 50% of these lead to arrears you have 2.25% of the market in arrears.

Not the stuff of apocalypse. Which is why we have no apocalyse.

(Yes, I know, we're in the bull trap. MOOOOOO)

I too was liking your elaberate use of language, but unfortunately it's all been ruined by this piece of cac;), the only fact that I saw in your post was the '45% of all mortgages were made without a check on the stated income.' The rest of it you've just made up.:D

the_ash_and_the_oak

julieq wrote: »

It's like arguing with a religious cult here sometimes. You make a lot of points (most of my points relate to one of my hobby horses which is the intemperate use of language to create an impression not backed up by factual evidence), back up the argument with logic and argument, and all that comes back is a glazed expression and a confident explanation that we're sitting in the bull trap at the gates of the end of the world.

The bears are now facing the problem all fixed belief systems face, which is that events eventually start moving against what they believe.

not really feeling this tbh. fixed bearish or bullish viewpoints are counter-productive imo. I am currently bearish, this does not mean I will always be bearish, it will depend on future events. It is my belief prices will fall further, it is not my belief that they will fall for the rest of my life, which would be a fixed-belief system.

also not really feeling the idea that events moving in a direction opposite to belief is necessarily a problem. the large rises of 2005 and 2006 didn't challenge my bearish views at the time, they confirmed my bearish views (conversely if there had been no real rises in 05 and 06 my bearishness would have become weaker most likely)

also your post is taking it as agreed that events are moving away from a bearish destination. Not really seeing this. I don't dispute that prices have risen (and don't understand those that criticize the validity of this data), but the price direction of 2009 hasn't convinced me that we aren't due larger falls over the next couple of years. govt and bank policy has been quite successful and reducing the number of forced sales, keeping rates low for current owners, and consequently keeping transaction levels low.

imo the driver for the crash now is not 'struggling owners' but insufficent buyers with credit. fewer sellers, fewer buyers, fewer transactions, a more protracted process. Even if I am wrong I would not be looking to a malfunctioning market (unless you think current transaction levels are good) to support a theory of comfortably bottomed out and rising prices

ad9898_3

julieq wrote: »

Nuclear fission will do it.

Mmmm, fission is highly unlikely to be the magic bullet, there are far too many issues attached to it, for starters they take about 15 years to get up and running, and they would have to be breeder reactors too, which governments are non too committal on. If you meant 'fusion' then that's at least three decades away, and that's being optimistic, there is a high chance that it will never work.