Skipton BS faces Legal Challenge over raising rates...

chucky

Kohoutek wrote: »

And what caused the lack of liquidity on the money markets? Answer: the collapse of the subprime mortgage market in the US. Doesn't that demonstrate in principle that risky mortgage lending is risky for the economy?

Do you know where Northern Rock's risky mortgages went? Just look on their website:

http://companyinfo.northernrock.co.uk/investorRelations/results/stockEx061002.asp

"Northern rock plc: trading statement for the 9 months to 30 september 2006

We are continuing to develop our partnership with Lehman Brothers to offer near-prime, sub-prime and self certified loans to customers. The credit risk on these loans will not be borne by Northern Rock..."

100%+ mortgages are predicated on the assumption that property prices will never fall. That's complete rubbish, just look at the facts:

thanks for stating the obvious

you're trying to compare apples with pineapples again - liquidity funding has very little do with the quality of mortgage underwriting or the type of mortgages that you're underwriting.

you've just proved my point showing how Northern Rocks dealings with Lehman and how they securitised funds was flawed in a liquidity crisis as the credit crunch was.

it wasn't the 100% mortgages that caused them a problem

chucky

DaddyBear wrote: »

Don't point out the obvious to the bulls. HPI is good and anyone who demonstrates that it isn't is either stupid or a VI.

i think that you've forgotten about your unfounded soundbite statements that you couldn't back up

if you're winding up Hamish that's fine but expect to be picked up on it

i'm not a bull by the way - just a realist

Charterhouse

chucky wrote: »

thanks for stating the obvious

you're trying to compare apples with pineapples again - liquidity funding has very little do with the quality of mortgage underwriting or the type of mortgages that you're underwriting.

you've just proved my point showing how Northern Rocks dealings with Lehman and how they securitised funds was flawed in a liquidity crisis as the credit crunch was.

it wasn't the 100% mortgages that caused them a problem

No, the 2 are linked. Because part of the reason that liquidity dried up for these guys before anyone else was because the market knew about problems with their mortgage book. You are 100% wrong.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

i'm not a bull by the way - just a realist

PMSL.

I'm not sure what's funnier in that. It's either the fact you think you do not argue the bull point constantly, or the fact that considering that, you think you are a realist!

chucky

chucky wrote: »

to be fair Hamish - in many cases yes but doesn't that depend on your mortgage rate too

were 100% mortgages not more expensive and had that stupid mortgage indemnity insurance attached to them?

probably because i'm not a pessimist and think the worst and have been right more often than not when people have been calling for "part 2" numerous times like you do.

you missed this very post on this very thread that you conveniently filtered out out through your pessimistic views

chucky wrote: »

to be fair Hamish - in many cases yes but doesn't that depend on your mortgage rate too

were 100% mortgages not more expensive and had that stupid mortgage indemnity insurance attached to them?

it's always a good sign to see that you get confused you automatically distract the subject of the thread. good work :T

DaddyBear

chucky wrote: »

i think that you've forgotten about your unfounded soundbite statements that you couldn't back up

don't need to. Other posters, who have a better grasp on reality than you, have already done it for me.

chucky

DaddyBear wrote: »

don't need to. Other posters, who have a better grasp on reality than you, have already done it for me.

of course you don't need to because you're full of it

but it was a good cop out when you've been found out to be full of sound bites :eek:

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

probably because i'm not a pessimist and think the worst and have been right more often than not when people have been calling for "part 2" numerous times like you do.

you missed this very post on this very thread that you conveniently filtered out out through your pessimistic views


it's always a good sign to see that you get confused you automatically distract the subject of the thread. good work :T

You appear to be confused Chucky. You are quoting yourself old chap.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You appear to be confused Chucky. You are quoting yourself old chap.

you didn't get it (again) did you

i was pulling up hamish on his statement which he wasn't right on.
if i was one of those bulls i'd be agreeing with him or are you confused again

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

you didn't get it (again) did you

No I didn't, your writing style is bloody awful.

i was pulling up hamish on his statement which he wasn't right on.
if i was one of those bulls i'd be agreeing with him or are you confused again

Ahh right. So because you didn't agree with Hamish on one single item, you are not a bull.

Glad we cleard that one up!