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

undetterred

shortchanged wrote: »

Mr Winder added: "Non-discretionary spending [such as food, petrol and tax] is rising considerably more quickly than incomes. Therefore, there is a natural incentive to move to interest-only products."

I don't know if it's just me or something but this seems to indicate that some people are having affordability issues.

Try getting an IO product in the current climate without a means of paying it off.

chucky

shortchanged wrote: »

Mr Winder added: "Non-discretionary spending [such as food, petrol and tax] is rising considerably more quickly than incomes. Therefore, there is a natural incentive to move to interest-only products."

I don't know if it's just me or something but this seems to indicate that people are having affordability issues.

again you've avoided the question and squirmed onto something else.

it's becoming a bit of a habit now.

how many people are moving onto interest free products that are actually struggling and by how much has their spending increased to qualify them as struggling?

have another go at twisting, squirming and avoiding answering the question.

Really2

shortchanged wrote: »

Mr Winder added: "Non-discretionary spending [such as food, petrol and tax] is rising considerably more quickly than incomes. Therefore, there is a natural incentive to move to interest-only products."

I don't know if it's just me or something but this seems to indicate that some people are having affordability issues.

Well I would say he is saying if your inflation is higher than your IR rate there is less incentive to repay.
You could be using the repayment element to secure a higher rate of interest than your loan.

shortchanged_2

chucky wrote: »

again you've avoided the question and squirmed onto something else.

it's becoming a bit of a habit now.

how many people are moving onto interest free products that are actually struggling and by how much has their spending increased to qualify them as struggling?

have another go at twisting, squirming and avoiding answering the question.

Chucky I don't know the figures any more than you do.

This is your favourite tactic to try to put people on the spot to answer questions that they really have no way of answering.

It's just like me asking you something like "what is the average income of people who take out a Santander mortgage?"

DervProf

chucky wrote: »

well i was trying to get some more info out of you to see if you actually understood what the article actually meant...

let's do the basics for you... from the article.

that would be £60,000,000,000 right... with 300,000 mortgage owners switching to interest only. that would be an average mortgage of £200,000. ok fine.

then the next paragraph says that the average mortgage is £109,000
so which is right?

so when i try to smell the coffee i can't really because the article is rubbish and as for your intelligence... let's just leave that one there. nuff said on that one

Both are right (or are right if the data collected is correct).

It is your intelligence that might be a bit rubbish.

chucky

shortchanged wrote: »

Chucky I don't know the figures any more than you do.

that's strange because only a few posts back you were telling people that they were missing the point. here's your post.

shortchanged wrote: »

wake up and smell the coffee.

and then when i questioned you, you reversed it and accused me of not understanding.

shortchanged wrote: »

Another classic chucky repsonse. Read the report chucky, the information is on there. :wall:

so now it's you that doesn't really know the answer and is trying to throw the usual soundbites around without having clucking clue.

shortchanged wrote: »

This is your favourite tactic to try to put people on the spot to answer questions that they really have no way of answering.

favourite tactic?? no, it's me demonstrating to you that you froth about stuff you don't have the remotest clue about and just because a newspaper says 'many' it's a problem.

go and run along now, you've discredited yourself enough for one day...

chucky

DervProf wrote: »

Both are right (or are right if the data collected is correct).

It is your intelligence that might be a bit rubbish.

here we go, desperate prof has arrived taking the usual sides trying to divert attention from his 'on-line buddy' shortofintelligence.

DervProf

chucky wrote: »

here we go, desperate prof has arrived taking the usual sides trying to divert attention from his 'on-line buddy' shortofintelligence.

Here we go, chucky avoiding answering the allegation.

I wonder if you can defend what you wrote ?

I say you got it wrong. You come back with a diversion.

Discuss the point I made, or it is you who is diverting attention.

julieq

The issue is that as often happens, a bear posted an article without actually reading or understanding it properly in an attempt to sustain an article of faith.

The piece clearly states this is a rehash of an article published last July, so referring to data collected well before that. So it's not new data (sorry shortchanged), it tells us nothing new, and all that is happening is we're seeing a textbook example of confirmation bias being played out based on old data and a few unsubstantiated projections against a marginal change. There seem to be comments on today's situation with inflation that simply did not apply when the data was gathered, so are irrelevant.

Newspapers are not primary sources of information. They publish selectively to tell a story which generally is chosen to suit the attitudes of their readers to particular issues (in this case it's the DT readers' belief that lending money to the dissolute working classes is sending the nice people to hell in a handcart). Unless you're reasonably skilled in reading between the lines and digging into the actual significance of any data, you'll just get things wrong.

Did anyone notice the real news story today, which is the contraction of credit to Chinese manufacturers? That has potential to be really devastating to everyone because it risks sending Chinese export prices up and potentially popping the Far Eastern property bubble.

chucky

DervProf wrote: »

Here we go, chucky avoiding answering the allegation.

I wonder if you can defend what you wrote ?

I say you got it wrong. You come back with a diversion.

Discuss the point I made, or it is you who is diverting attention.

are you really that stupid or just pretending to be.

i haven't avoided anything but i admire your desperate tactic to help out your 'online buddy'. the article is poor and the data isn't great and very easy for someone of your low intelligence to not understand as your question proves.

and then you wonder why i give you a hard time and actually think you're a moron