HPC bear called vile on Radio 5.

geneer

geneer wrote: »

Talking about vile extremists, you'll never guess what this former HPCer said.


http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=114338&st=0&p=1885051&#entry1885051
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=114338&st=120&p=1886039&#entry1886039

No comment Hamish.

I'm not surprised.

geneer

"What happens to the housing market in 5 years time?"
"I think your looking at a car crash in slow motion honestly".

You forgot to point that bit out. Well done simpley.

geneer

doire wrote: »

Any wonder hamish got banned from HPC. He seems like he isnt right in the head.

He certainly has a thing for the lovely merynn.
I'll bet his missus wonders about what he keeps in that mysteriously locked room.

suki1001

ILW wrote: »

My point was that when people start consider a house an asset rather than a home it can lead to problems.

Any asset can fall in value (in fact most do) and this should be taken into account when purchasing it, whether using credit or not.

I say this as someone who first bought in early 1990 and spent around 10 years in a property that was worth less than I paid for it.

I agree to an extent, we were in negative equity years ago for about 5 or 6 years, although we wanted to move, we didn't have to move, so we sat it out.

However, I think most people would change their views on buying, if at the end of their 25 yr mortgage, they ended up in negative equity, or there was a high chance of being in negative equity. I don't mean through buying the wrong mortgage product either, I mean value of houses in general. Although, this is an extreme example, even if your primary reason is for a home you are still doing it for financial gain in the long term.

ILW

suki1001 wrote: »

I agree to an extent, we were in negative equity years ago for about 5 or 6 years, although we wanted to move, we didn't have to move, so we sat it out.

However, I think most people would change their views on buying, if at the end of their 25 yr mortgage, they ended up in negative equity, or there was a high chance of being in negative equity. I don't mean through buying the wrong mortgage product either, I mean value of houses in general. Although, this is an extreme example, even if your primary reason is for a home you are still doing it for financial gain in the long term.

If on a repayment mortgage, it is impossible to be in negative equity at the end of the term.

macaque_2

Sibley wrote: »

Made me chuckle this one.

Billy no mates rings in with his views.
1.56 into the interview.

HPC are all up in arms over it.

At least they know how the genral public feels and won't allow a crash.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onsole/b017wys4

Both you and Victoria Derbyshire have made the rooky error of damning 'Martin from Birmingham' without actually listening to what he was saying.

Martin was referring to people with 'no sense of personal responsibility' who have got into negative equity through 'their own stupidity and greed' and used their 'homes as gambling chips' and have invested their 'entire savings without leaving any money for any other contingencies'.

His comments seem perfectly reasonable to me. Why should we have any sympathy for borrowers and lenders who behaved recklessly and out of personal greed? Why should pensioner's on fixed income be forced to take a net loss on their savings because, because people gambled to far on property?

You call Martin from Birmingham 'Billy no mates' and your posts carry a strong undercurrent of venom. The only reason that I can see for this irrational anger is that you feel cheated that society has not bailed you out even more from your foolish and speculative excesses.

Martin was right. People who gamble on property must take the rough with the smooth. The gamble worked for years and we saw no end of gloating on this website. The market has now turned and I'm afraid the speculators must show a stiff upper lip. As for Martin, I think he ended up putting Victoria in her place politely and effectively.

Sibley

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=173076

Hahahahaha.

Made my christmas this thread. Twisted the HPC lot up to the max.
Wish I could have given the bloke on the radio a piece of my mind.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=173076

bendix

ILW wrote: »

If on a repayment mortgage, it is impossible to be in negative equity at the end of the term.

And there - in a pithy sentence - is the quintessential essence of modern Britain.

thanks ILW, that made me laugh.

abaxas

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well good on Victoria Derbyshire for telling it like it is.

The truly shocking thing about this is not that she called him "vile".... that goes without saying..... but rather that the hpc-ers are such an extremist minority that they'd be outraged when someone states the obvious.

Just goes to show how out of touch they are with reality.

There is no correlation between right and wrong and minority/majority views.

Unless of course you still want homosexuality to be illegal? Women not to have the vote etc.

Running_Horse

thescouselander wrote: »

I dont think they guy was saying anything too controversial - wasn't he just saying that people have to take responsibility for how they manage their money? Thats true isn't it?

Exactly.

When we needed a bigger house in 2007, we could have borrowed much more and got something detached with an en-suite. We chose to be cautious and buy something more modest, and a couple of unexpected financial problems didn't threaten our home.

If others chose to risk all for a dream house then that is their choice and their risk, and if it works out, their reward. It's called personal responsibility.