Cash-strapped families switch £60bn-worth of mortgages to interest-only

Graham_Devon

Yes I did chuckle to myself.

Just the thought that putting someone who has no income onto IO will sort this issues out tickled me.

No need to start with the abuse. As for using rolling heads....I never use them. I used them once yesterday.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes I did chuckle to myself.

Just the thought that putting someone who has no income onto IO will sort this issues out tickled me.
.

Do you not realise that is the same for people with smaller mortgages.

People do have partners and savings.

Or why is everyone without a job made to go straight to repo.

Again you fail the logic test.

Graham_Devon

I may fail your logic test. But I'll always fail that.

The article states that they have been put on IO to save reposession, or forclosure. I suggest you look at that part. Putting people who have lost their jobs onto IO isn't likely to save a repo (though I understand your logic is very different).

Those with savings, I very much doubt would come under the "struggling" and "save from foreclosure" figures, dependant on savings amounts.

Just one question? Why can it not be accepted that it's most likely people struggling to pay their mortgages in general? It goes without saying that the larger the mortgage, the more likely someone is to struggle. These figures are not exactly large, they are just above average family home prices of the last 3-5 years.

Considering the 100%+ mortgages given out at the time of the high prices, why are you categorically saying it cannot just be people generally struggling with large debts?

Really2

DervProf wrote: »

I think it's just as difficult for someone on £60K to find work if they've been laid off as it is for someone on £18K (if not harder).

I think that losing a £60K job, and having a £200K mortgage is more likely to require a swift switch to IO, than someone losing a lower paid job with a smaller debt.

In reality regardless of size of mortgage you would contact the bank straight away.

Also you are right there are more lower paid jobs, so that means their will also be more people losing their jobs in the lower paid bracket than the higher paid bracket.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I may fail your logic test. But I'll always fail that.

Because you either don't read or cherry pick part of a debate to try and put someone down. (like your use of lol)

But then don't think through your answer, like above. Who IO wont save the ones who have lost high paid jobs but it will ones with low paid jobs.
Hello they have both lost their incomes.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Because you either don't read or cherry pick part of a debate to try and put someone down. (like your use of lol)

But then don't think through your answer, like above. Who IO wont save the ones who have lost high paid jobs but it will ones with low paid jobs.
Hello they have both lost their incomes.

I'm sorry, what? (no LOL's).

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just one question? Why can it not be accepted that it's most likely people struggling to pay their mortgages in general? It goes without saying that the larger the mortgage, the more likely someone is to struggle. These figures are not exactly large, they are just above average family home prices of the last 3-5 years.

Considering the 100%+ mortgages given out at the time of the high prices, why are you categorically saying it cannot just be people generally struggling with large debts?

It is from 2007 to now, mortgage affordability has increased due to lower base so it is more likely to do with recession (jobs etc) simply because of the dates.
If it was to do with overstreching you expect it to be higher in the boom.

More people struggled in the last recession also, why cant anyone accept that is the likely cause?

chucky

DervProf wrote: »

It doesn't take much thought to conclude that the people that have to switch to IO are likely to have larger mortgages. I can't see what the problem is. Yes, you can argue about the figures (if they are accurate or not), but if you are saying that people who are struggling with their mortgages and have switched to IO should have average sized mortgages, then I'd disagree.

i don't think you can assume that the ones with higher mortgages are those switching to I/O. my main point is that has been pushed to extremes is that the UK average mortgage is £109k and the average mortgage of those switching to I/O is £240k according to the article.

the way they've got to £240k average mortgage is very flaky to say the least when the average house price is £155k to around £200k on the various indexes and the average LTV people have taken out on new mortgages is around 75%. or me it's not correct.

its getting to the silly discussion stage if this goes further and i can see the devon bloke already getting himself moist at some of the posts.

DervProf

chucky wrote: »

i don't think you can assume that the ones with higher mortgages are those switching to I/O. my main point is that has been pushed to extremes is that the UK average mortgage is £109k and the average mortgage of those switching to I/O is £240k according to the article.

the way they've got to £240k average mortgage is very flaky to say the least when the average house price is £155k to around £200k on the various indexes and the average LTV people have taken out on new mortgages is around 75%. or me it's not correct.

its getting to the silly discussion stage if this goes further and i can see the devon bloke already getting himself moist at some of the posts.

You don't believe the figures then ?

Fair enough.

chucky

DervProf wrote: »

You don't believe the figures then ?

Fair enough.

no because i've explained why.

you believe them because they fit your mind set and according to you anyone that has a large mortgage has switched to I/O and is struggling financially