Skipton BS faces Legal Challenge over raising rates...

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

that's one thing we could agree on

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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!

i disagree with him quite often - maybe you should read the post before hitting the Reply button

Graham_Devon

So because you disagree with Hamish quite often you are therefore not a bull?

Glad we cleared that one up, you realist you!

DaddyBear

chucky wrote: »

that could be right if you are talking about the US of A

Talking of soundbites........

chucky

DaddyBear wrote: »

Talking of soundbites........

but you still haven't come back to back up your sub prime statements regarding the UK

what's the weather in Bath like at the moment?

Antispam

Said on radio today that they made £63million profit

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-24/skipton-says-full-year-profit-rises-to-63-5-million-pounds.html

Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Skipton Building Society said full- year group pre-tax profit rose to 63.5 million pounds from 22.5 million pounds.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Antispam wrote: »

Said on radio today that they made £63million profit

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-24/skipton-says-full-year-profit-rises-to-63-5-million-pounds.html

Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Skipton Building Society said full- year group pre-tax profit rose to 63.5 million pounds from 22.5 million pounds.

And thats WITH them honouring their guaranteed mortgage rate cap.

Just imagine how much more profit they'll be able to make now that they can tear up contracts at will.

Can the bears come up with a single reason as to why allowing a lender to break it's agreement and stiff consumers who signed up for a guaranteed deal is a good thing? (other than obviously they don't care who gets stiffed if it might help create another crash)

Kohoutek

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

What I was saying is very simple, I don't why you can't understand.

The problems Northern Rock had in accessing enough credit from the money markets were caused by the collapse of subprime in the US. What's the difference between the subprime mortgages that caused the disaster and 100%, 125% mortgages? They're both based on the idea of lending to people you can't afford a 'regular mortgage' and the idea that house prices only ever go up. If you're advocating 100%+ mortgages again then you're advocating another subprime bubble.

Yes, Northern's Rock 100% mortgages didn't cause them a problem, but it's only because they no longer had the credit risk, entities like Lehmann Brothers did instead.

I don't know if you remember, but Lehmann Brother's exposure to subprime, including rubbish like Northern Rock's "near-prime, sub-prime and self certified loans" (which undoubtedly include 100%+ mortgages) didn't exactly pay off for them.

If Northern Rock had kept the credit risk on these high risk mortgages, then they would have taken the hit instead. The fact that they managed to securitise away their high risk mortgage last time doesn't mean 100%+ mortgages are a good idea in principle.

chucky

Kohoutek wrote: »

What I was saying is very simple, I don't why you can't understand.

The problems Northern Rock had in accessing enough credit from the money markets were caused by the collapse of subprime in the US. What's the difference between the subprime mortgages that caused the disaster and 100%, 125% mortgages? They're both based on the idea of lending to people you can't afford a 'regular mortgage'. If you're advocating 100%+ mortgages again then you're advocating another subprime bubble.

Yes, Northern's Rock 100% mortgages didn't cause them a problem, but it's only because they no longer had the credit risk, entities like Lehmann Brothers did instead.

I don't know if you remember, but Lehmann Brother's exposure to subprime, including rubbish like Northern Rock's "near-prime, sub-prime and self certified loans" (which undoubtedly include 100%+ mortgages) didn't exactly pay off for them.

If Northern Rock had kept the credit risk on these high risk mortgages, then they would have taken the hit instead. The fact that they managed to securitise away their high risk mortgage last time doesn't mean 100%+ mortgages are a good idea in principle.

i think you're saying what i said earlier in the thread... but it's not me that needs explaining it to you best tell Daddy Bear then - he thinks there was a direct correlation in the UK

DaddyBear wrote: »

So subprime mortgages and the fact that banks had insufficent deposits relative to the amount in loans had nothing to do with it?

chucky wrote: »

that could be right if you are talking about the US of A

you should be educating these pessimists on here they don't seem to have a clue

btw NR's 6 months arrears rate on their 125% products is around 5% - was that enough to force them into trouble or was it their funding requirements?

DaddyBear

chucky wrote: »

but you still haven't come back to back up your sub prime statements regarding the UK

what's the weather in Bath like at the moment?

Not exactly sure what you want me to say.

Estimates in 2007 were that upto 10% of mortgages were classed as subprime. Exact figures are difficult to come by as many were initially prime mortgages that had second or even third loans added on, making them subprime.
In 2007 70% of repossessions were subprime.

You can argue all day about what cause the recession and financial crisis in the UK, but to say that subprime mortgages had nothing to do with it is fantasy.

10% is not the majority, and even if you use other estimates which have come out as low as 1% for subprimes, its still significant. The straw that breaks the camel's back is tiny compared the the whole weight of straw, but its still the trigger.


As for the weather.... its raining cats and dogs..... I love soundbytes.

Charterhouse

I think it's higher than that but let me find the numbers. The arrears on their entire book are 4.11%. Plus they've taken well over a billion in losses already which are effectively arrears that have already been realised.