Repossessions: 5 million at risk

mbga9pgf

chucky wrote: »

by removing however many billion off that is needed off their balance sheets by clearing CDS and IRS through clearing houses instead of being OTC and one counterparty holding the risk or position...

that's a big part of the answer

Good idea that the Government are planning to seperate retail from investment then, to prevent such a ludicrous idea going ahead.

mbga9pgf

chucky wrote: »

if they could afford when they took out the mortgages when rates were 5%. why would they struggle when rates were 3%? that's still less than they were originally paying.

i'm not saying that nobody will be affected by rates rises btw...

Something to do with the fact many homes are now on a single income, with further job losses in the pipeline perhaps?

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Good idea that the Government are planning to seperate retail from investment then, to prevent such a ludicrous idea going ahead.

i think you forget that this will stimulate and provide more liquidity in the money markets as they get around the capital restrictions that are planned...

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Something to do with the fact many homes are now on a single income, with further job losses in the pipeline perhaps?

1.5 million unemployed pre-recession >> 2.5 million unemployed now

strip out non-homewoners or people that don't have a mortgage it's not that huge number people were [STRIKE]hoping for[/STRIKE] expecting

Emy1501

chucky wrote: »

if they could afford when they took out the mortgages when rates were 5%. why would they struggle when rates were 3%? that's still less than they were originally paying.

i'm not saying that nobody will be affected by rates rises btw...

They couldn't thats why prices fell between the end of 2007 till till earl 2009 when rates hit .5%. The Wilsons have admitted that they would have gone bust if had not been allowed to go on the 2.5% SVR.

Also there are those who rather than paying off their debt have got used to their new rate and have taken on new debt.

chucky

Emy1501 wrote: »

They couldn't thats why prices fell between the end of 2007 till till earl 2009 when rates hit .5%. The Wilsons have admitted that they would have gone bust if had not been allowed to go on the 2.5% SVR.

Also there are those who rather than paying off their debt have got used to their new rate and have taken on new debt.

just because it happened to the Wilsons who ran a completely over-leveraged business model doesn't mean that it has happened to everybody.

Harry_Powell

I was forgetting that only those who have mortgages are at risk of losing their jobs. Silly me. Oh and lets not forget that, for our sums to work, none of them have income protection insurance, none of them have emergency savings, none of them can go onto interest only mortgages for a while, none of them can have mortgage payment holidays, none of them will be dealt with evenhandedly by their mortgage lender, none of them will receive assistance from the government, friends or family and ALL of them will have 100% mortgages.

Do I have this correct? In that case, I totally agree with everything the 'bear' gang says. How could I have been to silly as to doubt them with this sort of evidence at their fingertips?

chucky

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I was forgetting that only those who have mortgages are at risk of losing their jobs. Silly me. Oh and lets not forget that, for our sums to work, none of them have income protection insurance, none of them have emergency savings, none of them can go onto interest only mortgages for a while, none of them can have mortgage payment holidays, none of them will be dealt with evenhandedly by their mortgage lender, none of them will receive assistance from the government, friends or family and ALL of them will have 100% mortgages.

Do I have this correct? In that case, I totally agree with everything the 'bear' gang says. How could I have been to silly as to doubt them with this sort of evidence at their fingertips?

and none of them have received redundancy packages or will ever find another job...

Harry_Powell

chucky wrote: »

and none of them have received redundancy packages or will ever find another job...

Damn, I forgot those. Yes, we need to add those in to made the 'new paradigm' work.

Harry_Powell

To the 'Bears': Honestly guys, do you really believe the stuff you write, or is it just to pass the time and to wind up the 'bull' gang? Isn't it the case that because YOU may have no emergency savings, redundancy protection, or all of the other stuff I mentioned in my previous post, you think EVERYONE is in the same boat? If so, are your posts merely a reflection of your own fears and misgivings about your own precarious finances? This called 'projection' in psychology.

In classical psychology, projection is always seen as a defense mechanism that occurs when a person's own fears are repressed and then attributed to someone else.

An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and redirect their libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another.

Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

In lay-mans terms, you 'bears' are projecting your own fear of failure (i.e. losing control of your finances to the point of complete financial breakdown - repossession, bankruptcy, etc.) onto society as a whole, lessening your own anxiety. In short, you are walking examples of the phrase 'misery loves company'. i.e. if you can make yourself believe that everyone has the same fears as you, you're not weak because everyone is in the same boat, indeed society as a whole is in the same boat as you.