And another bear bites the dust... mbga9pgf's epiphany....

mbga9pgf

dopester wrote: »

Why do you need a 5 bed house with all the pretty features such as paddock? There's just 2 of you yes? I hope it's not just a prestige thing, because you're worth it kind of thing. £325K is a lot of money imo, for a FTB, even down your way of the country.

Are you planning on having lots of kids? Bit remote? Shops... have you considered schools zones for the area? A guy I knew had a house all remote.. with neighbours far and few with not many kids around for his kids to play and hang around with. Regularly getting burgled too. Not a really convenient location for taking in a lodger either, if that ever became something to consider. Always needing a car, because bus-stops a good hike away.

You probably considered a lot of that.. was just wondering a few things out loud.

No snages mate. Thanks for pointing this out. The location is very similar to a location I grew up in, if anything a little nicer. It has a lovely little market town about 10 mins down the road, and is only 20 mins away from 2 large towns. Tesco extra is 15 mins away and we already do home delivery.

It isnt a prestige thing. Its what I grew up with, its what I loved, its what I want for my kids. The schools are perfect, local primary with ofsted grading of excellent and tbh depending on what happens, we may board the kids depending where I end up with work once they get to a suitable age. Rather than go on an expensive holiday a year and pay for a flash motor, think I will have a nice, affordable country pad instead. Its the way me and the missus are.

We are planning kids, not lots though, as I think the planet is overinfested with oomans as it is, 2 absolute max I hope. Until we sprog up, we will probably look to offer 2 of the spare rooms up to some lodgers or even seperate the granny annexe from the main property temporarily and rent it out at cost to someone unfortunate enough to be able to own a home due to excessive pricing and who is waiting for prices to fall. It has a seperate bathroom and kitchen and would make an ideal 2 bed bungalow, for around 300 per month not including bills. Locals have a fair few rentals like this (rents are much more), usually converted stable blocks and the like. Low rental means we get to pick the sort of character(s) we will share the house with. Course, if we cant find someone, we can still afford the house,so its only a backup. We are planning massive overpayments for the first 12 months while rates stay low, rather than flash the place up; I want the mortgage down below 4X my salary and we sould easily do that by easter next year by my calcs.

Busses... Bloody hate public transport. Suppose that part of me was instilled last time I lived in t'sticks! :rotfl: More expensive than driving, slow, annoying and full of old people (joking). No thanks. Much prefer my 60+ MPG oil burner with £30 road tax thanks.

Burgalry rates for the area we are moving to are half that of our current area.

mbga9pgf

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

who said there was going to be an impending financial armageddon? i was just saying that the banks are hiding their losses by not using mark to market accounting, until the worst in terms of mortgage delinquency rates is over. it was approved by the us govt in march 2009 - that's what the bloomberg article says.

if there are more losses from 'alt a', then as long as mark to market is suspended, the banks won't necessarily need to ask for more bailouts.

Does mean the global RMBS market is dead as a dodo for a very long time though.

Oh, it also means that RBS and Lloyds are F*cked as soon as the SLS needs repaying. But thats the next gubberments problem.

chucky

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

who said there was going to be an impending financial armageddon? i was just saying that the banks are hiding their losses by not using mark to market accounting, until the worst in terms of mortgage delinquency rates is over. it was approved by the us govt in march 2009 - that's what the bloomberg article says.

so it's not as serious as you made it out to be then - quelle surprise

as for mark-to-market, don't get me started... you know very little.
the banks will still value and price them. the mark-to-market value in 2009 is lower than it is in May 2010... have a think at what that means...

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

if there are more losses from 'alt a', then as long as mark to market is suspended, the banks won't necessarily need to ask for more bailouts.

that's rollox - the banks don't have a never ending supply of money that will cover all the alleged losses you claim they're going to have to cover from these Alt-A defaults

mbga9pgf

chucky wrote: »

the mark-to-market value in 2009 is lower than it is in May 2010... have a think at what that means...

Irrational Exuberance.
Look at property values 2009 Vs 2010 in the US both commercial and residential.

If the underlying asset is worth less, want to comment on the value of the security big nose?

PrivatisetheNHSnow

chucky wrote: »

so it's not as serious as you made it out to be then - quelle surprise

can you point we to the quote where i said it was going to cause financial armageddon plz?

chucky wrote: »

as for mark-to-market, don't get me started... you know very little.
the banks will still value and price them. the mark-to-market value in 2009 is lower than it is in May 2010...

oh right, so you're an expert in the american real estate market are you?

i think i'll go with the two academics, not an armchair economist from an internet forum...

they still value them yes, but not at a market value - that's the point.

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Irrational Exuberance.
Look at property values 2009 Vs 2010 in the US both commercial and residential.

If the underlying asset is worth less, want to comment on the value of the security big nose?

but are they worth less?

if they're not performing mark-to-market it doesn't matter as it doesn't affect the balance sheet.
it's only an issue if you have to actualise the loss

mbga9pgf

chucky wrote: »

but are they worth less?

if they're not performing mark-to-market it doesn't matter as it doesn't affect the balance sheet.
it's only an issue if you have to actualise the loss

So, if everything is a bed of roses, why are they not carrying out Mark to Market as required internationally via BASEL II?

chucky

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

i think i'll go with the two academics, not an armchair economist from an internet forum...

lol - you do have a cheek but you are amusing

i'm not even an armchair economist, that's too high for me - i'm just a guy on an internet forum that doesn't believe in forumonics...

PrivatisetheNHSnow

chucky wrote: »

lol - you do have a cheek but you are amusing

i'm not even an armchair economist, that's too high for me - i'm just a guy on an internet forum that doesn't believe in forumonics...

me too - that's why i posted an article written by two professors of finance.

you just posted your opinion....:eek:

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

So, if everything is a bed of roses, why are they not carrying out Mark to Market as required internationally via BASEL II?

and they're doing this just because of the Alt-A's right?

here's your thread from a year ago making a fool of yourself... claiming no green shoots and we were all doomed
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1692639&highlight=

here's one of yopur posts

mbga9pgf wrote: »

I will take that as yes then steve. Looking forward to losing another couple of thousand on your FTB slave boxes?

the irony is that you've just bought- what a turnaround :rotfl: