Mortgage Madness 2003

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

nearlynew wrote: »

But many of them were susidising the rent out of their own pocket in the hope that HPI would come to their rescue.

Epic Fail.

If prices stagnate for 25 years...( :rotfl:)..... and you can end up with an income generating asset paid for 90% by someone else and 10% by you, you'd be an idiot not to.

Negative gearing is a fact of life in countries like Australia, where cashflow positive BTL has been rare for over a decade. But eventually rents rise and cashflow turns positive. No big deal, renters are still subsidising your asset purchase.

PasturesNew

I watched it at the time - I wonder where Andy Ashworth is now.

brit1234

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Sure it happened, but it was always a small percentage of the total mortgage market.

Really, with the vast majority all offering these self certs and encoraging them to lie about the wages. It is a large and significant percentage when combined with all the buy to let fraud as said at the Treasuary Select Commitee last year. Its nationwide.

I live in the area of the video and I was priced out of the area on a good wage in 2003 despite it being easily affordable for my parents with their first flat.

The whole housing market is one huge bubble, prices don't go up 10-15% each year on their own. It was wide spread ramping, fraud, amd loose lending that causesd this and that is why prices are going to continue to crash.

chucky

brit1234 wrote: »

Really, with the vast majority all offering these self certs and encoraging them to lie about the wages. It is a large and significant percentage when combined with all the buy to let fraud as said at the Treasuary Select Commitee last year. Its nationwide.

I live in the area of the video and I was priced out of the area on a good wage in 2003 despite it being easily affordable for my parents with their first flat.

The whole housing market is one huge bubble, prices don't go up 10-15% each year on their own. It was wide spread ramping, fraud, amd loose lending that causesd this and that is why prices are going to continue to crash.

but you were one of these people that allegedly priced others out of the market... :rolleyes:

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And if they are in financial difficulty, then they are included in the arrears statistics.



What you describe as "misfortune" and being "scammed", actually still translates into making quite a lot of money for most of them over the long term. Just perhaps not quite as much as they'd have made had they bought earlier or later. But thats how markets work..... Nothing rises in a straight line forever....

No. These more likely will be commercial loans rather than a single loan per property. The loan facility would be secured on say 500 properties.
To achieve losses of that scale would be require a huge number of properties.

For people that bought overvalued property the effects are. Lost capital and higher interest than otherwise would be the case. Imagine you bought a property that had been overvalued by 15%, and now seen it drop another 15% in the crash. Yet still the mortgage to clear. Thats a serious amount of lost money for most people. Something that they will never recover. We are not talking about BTL here, but homeowners.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Thrugelmir wrote: »

For people that bought overvalued property the effects are. Lost capital and higher interest than otherwise would be the case.

Imagine you bought a property that had been overvalued by 15%, and now seen it drop another 15% in the crash. Yet still the mortgage to clear. Thats a serious amount of lost money for most people.

No, its just more money than they could have paid out by buying earlier, later or a different property.

They'll still end up with a property that 25 years from now is worth more than they paid for it, and they'll still be paying far less than renting for a lifetime, or even renting for 25 years.

Something that they will never recover. We are not talking about BTL here, but homeowners.

The only guaranteed losers are those who rent for decades. Anyone who buys, even at peak, even an overpriced property at peak, will still pay less than renters.

You are arguing semantics.

Person one: I saved 100K by buying instead of renting.

Person two: Ahh, but I timed the market better (or didn't pay too much for a newbuild) and saved 130k by buying over renting.

It's irrelevant, they both made money!!!!!!! One made more than the other, both gained, neither lost!!!!!:rotfl:

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No, its just more money than they could have paid out by buying earlier, later or a different property.

They'll still end up with a property that 25 years from now is worth more than they paid for it, and they'll still be paying far less than renting for a lifetime, or even renting for 25 years.




The only guaranteed losers are those who rent for decades. Anyone who buys, even at peak, even an overpriced property at peak, will still pay less than renters.

You are arguing semantics.

Person one: I saved 100K by buying instead of renting.

Person two: Ahh, but I timed the market better (or didn't pay too much for a newbuild) and saved 130k by buying over renting.

It's irrelevant, they both made money!!!!!!! One made more than the other, both gained, neither lost!!!!!:rotfl:

Work the sums out... Its not that straightforward as saying HPI is the root of all money. There are winners but also losers.........

I guess thats why I've been in finance/ money all my working life. :beer:

No doubt you'l point out otherwise. :rolleyes:

chucky

nearlynew wrote: »

But many of them were susidising the rent out of their own pocket in the hope that HPI would come to their rescue.

that doesn't make any sense - pre 2007 it wouldn't have happened
post 2007 only those who had long voids - there hasn't been enough of these.
look at the repossession numbers - not that high...

don't include shakerbigbaby in this - he only pays his ma £5 a week rent.

Sapphire

What gets me is that no one featured in the programme who was clearly breaking the law has been prosecuted and imprisoned. Anyone who committed fraud – from estate agents to greedy buyers – should be prosecuted and punished. It is honest taxpayers who are now having to pay the consequences of their criminal activities.

In my view this unelected 'government' (Brown first) should also be brought to account over this and kicked out.

This is an absolute scandal.

stonethrower

Sapphire wrote: »

What gets me is that no one featured in the programme who was clearly breaking the law has been prosecuted and imprisoned. Anyone who committed fraud – from estate agents to greedy buyers – should be prosecuted and punished. It is honest taxpayers who are now having to pay the consequences of their criminal activities.

In my view this unelected 'government' (Brown first) should also be brought to account over this and kicked out.

This is an absolute scandal.

There is not much chance of anyone getting charged, everyone knew what was going on from bankers up to the politicians. But the gravy train was supposed to go on forever