Repossessions drop to 18-month low

homelessskilledworker

wotsthat wrote: »

You've missed the point I've made.

I'm not saying that SMI won't have helped limit the number of repo's but that it's ridiculous for the CML to use SMI as a reason why their prediction was out. It's not as if the CML were unaware of SMI when they made their prediction.

Every year there's great excitement when the CML repossession forecast comes out. Every year they get it wrong by quite a long way.

You crack me up Wotsthat, I mean!! why let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Your argument is like saying that there are more convicted murderers in the UK than there were in Rwanda in the troubles, which is a factual statement. But it is just that they never convicted hardly anyone in Rwanda.

Maybe you should take a realistic look at what is going on in this article....
http://www.mortgageintroducer.com/ccstory/243863/5/Lender_forbearance_becoming_%E2%80%9Ca_sick_joke%E2%80%9D.htm

or

You can just continue with your blinkered and self serving views.

Graham_Devon

If mortgage forebearance and SMI etc is being called a sick joke by the estate agent industry, they must be getting frustrated by the would be sellers not having to sell!!

Nick Hopkinson, director of PPR Estates, called forbearance for borrowers who would never realistically be able to repay their mortgage “a sick joke”.

He said: “The banks pretending that their struggling borrowers are likely to be able to pay up in future is becoming, unfortunately, a sick joke.

“In fact rolling up debts is only making the size of the eventual bankruptcy on both sides larger.
“It would be far better for the banks and individuals to face up to their losses before they grow any more out of control.

“It’s difficult to see how forbearance is really helping either individuals or the wider housing market and economy in this situation.”

As it stands, even Barclays decided to remove those under forebearance out of their own arrears figures to make the arrears figures look better. I found this infor from the shareholders board, and the shareholders were disgruntled by it, as they suggest Barclays are putting across a set of figures which looks good, but isn't true. Their fear of course is loss through their own shares when hiding these figures can no longer continue and suddenly out of "no where" the arrears figures jump which has an impact on their shares.

They would much rather be presented with a true picture to base decisions on, whereas everything at the moment is done for today, with the bad figures being piled up for tommorow.

Apparently, according to the article you linked to, one in three people in arears are under some type of "forebearance". Thats 110,000 "would be" reposessions avoided. But for how long? Can the families really turn it around, considering mortgage terms can't really get any better than they are today?

This could go on for years yet...I wouldn't be surprised if it goes on for another decade.

Hopkinson said: “The UK housing market is completely distorted and has become non-functioning as a result of falsely high prices being supported by large debts that are in forbearance.

“Potential sellers cannot afford to sell at the ‘real market value’ prices that are being offered even if they want to.

“Potential buyers cannot get a fair gauge on the ‘market’ value of a property because so few transactions are taking place and are therefore scared off or waiting for prices to fall to realistic levels.”
Hopkinson said this “cannot continue indefinitely”.

And he added: “The lack of mobility that the currently frozen market is causing is very bad for the wider economy. Everyone knows the house price bubble has burst but is being artificially maintained by lender forbearance.

“A collective ‘bullet biting’ needs to occur between lenders who made reckless valuation and lending decisions, and buyers who took on debts they cannot afford. This is the only way the market confidence will recover and everyone can move on.”

Hopkinson could turn out to be the most hated figure on this board

THE_DEZERVING_BOOMERZ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If mortgage forebearance and SMI etc is being called a sick joke by the estate agent industry, they must be getting frustrated by the would be sellers not having to sell!!

Nick Hopkinson, director of PPR Estates, called forbearance for borrowers who would never realistically be able to repay their mortgage “a sick joke”.

He said: “The banks pretending that their struggling borrowers are likely to be able to pay up in future is becoming, unfortunately, a sick joke.

PPR estates aren't estate agents. They specialise in buying up cheap residential property at distressed prices. The more people who are under the threat of repossession, the more profit they make. Little wonder one of their directors isn't happy with the banks forebearance.

Graham_Devon

THE_DEZERVING_BOOMERZ wrote: »

PPR estates aren't estate agents. They specialise in buying up cheap residential property at distressed prices. The more people who are under the threat of repossession, the more profit they make. Little wonder one of their directors isn't happy with the banks forebearance.

I refer you to a fine rant from the comment section on that article...you'll like it....not a lot, but you'll like it. One of the best rants I have seen!

"Vested interests in the property market? Really?! No-one complained about that throughout the so called "good times" where house prices were rising 25% PER ANNUM ...

Just like mortgage lenders Halifax and Nationwide who publish their monthly indices without ever having to publish their datasets or justification for their "seasonal adjustments" helping keeping prices high, all the while being able to exclude any sales which "do not reflect the market" such as auctioned and repossessed sales.

Just like the private banks who made reckless lending decisions (125% LTV / interest only / self cert [liar loan] mortgages) to !!!!less borrowers with little or no pause to concern to loan repayment as the banks salesperson got paid a hefty commission as well as a juicy bonus, and now reality is starting to kick in any correction towards a "mark to market" valuation would leave the very same private banks insolvent.

Just like the unregulated estate agents who work for the vendor to screw as much out of a buyer as it is possible (often beyond repayable means) again for increased commissions and bonuses.

Just like the mainstream media who trumpet any house price increase as if it is a good thing, never stopping to think that an increased house price means more debt to service therefore higher mortgage payments and less earned income to spend within the productive economy leading to job losses.

Just like the owners of the mainstream media empires who are usually up to their neck as property owners using their "asset" prices to further inflate their already obscene wealth as the expense of the ordinary working public.

Just like the !!!!less borrower who took on a mortgage that they could not realistically have afforded, egged on by the endless property !!!!!! across the broadcast media and a society infected by an acute case of property mania, believing the hype of the "you can't lose with bricks and mortar" and "property prices only ever go up" mantra.

Just like the mortgage holder who took advantage of their rising house price throughout the noughties for equity withdrawal to fund their champagne lifestyle with new cars every 2-3 years, foreign holidays and shopping sprees despite their lemonade incomes.

Just like the "buy-to-let" brigade who bought into property at the right time (pre-bubble mania) and used their equity to buy further property to "fund their pension", feeding off the sweat and toil of the tenant who is often priced out by self same buy-to-letter.

Just like the "social landlords" who collect OVER £20 BILLION from the public purse via housing benefit. Just like the taxman who benefits from high property prices via stamp duty.

Just like the politicians who benefit from high house prices for the "feel-good factor" for re-election and are also flipping houses for personal gain. Just like the recent retiree who benefits from high house prices by having bought a three bed detached bungalow in the mid-80's at 50k now asks 350k for the very same property, an annual growth rate of over 7% far outstripping wage inflation.

But one negative VI and "boohoo not fair" comes the cry from the usual VI's. That is the sick joke."

THE_DEZERVING_BOOMERZ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I refer you to a fine rant from the comment section on that article...you'll like it....not a lot, but you'll like it. One of the best rants I have seen!

"Vested interests in the property market? Really?! No-one complained about that throughout the so called "good times" where house prices were rising 25% PER ANNUM ...Just like mortgage lenders Halifax and Nationwide who publish their monthly indices without ever having to publish their datasets or justification for their "seasonal adjustments" helping keeping prices high, all the while being able to exclude any sales which "do not reflect the market" such as auctioned and repossessed sales.

etc.

Err.. I was merely pointing out the comment you attributed to all estate agents in general, wasn't actually made by an estate agent at all.

But never mind, I can see you're on a crusade, against... well lots of things apparently.

macaque_2

ess0two wrote: »

Lesser of two evils,the government would have to pay either way to house these families.

Subsidising the failed adventures of greedy or stupid people is not a lesser evil. House prices are sinking. Distributing these losses to the innocent punishes everyone and blights the economy. To understand why this is this is true, see our current trade deficit.

ess0two

macaque wrote: »

Subsidising the failed adventures of greedy or stupid people is not a lesser evil. House prices are sinking. Distributing these losses to the innocent punishes everyone and blights the economy. To understand why this is this is true, see our current trade deficit.

Someone buying a house and losing their job / ability to pay,a failed venture?

OK so the houses are repossessed or whatever?who foots the bill when these people need re-homing?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If mortgage forebearance and SMI etc is being called a sick joke by the estate agent industry, they must be getting frustrated by the would be sellers not having to sell!!

PPR are not estate agents.

They're a vulture fund set up to buy large quantities of repossessions that the founders thought would be coming along...

Which has turned out to be a bit of a bad business model.

Hopkinson could turn out to be the most hated figure on this board

:rotfl:

Why would we hate someone that's bet on a bad idea and is angrily lashing out in public?

That makes him no different to all the other crashaholics online.

Let him continue ranting to his hearts content.

The angrier he gets, the more we know things are going well.:D

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Lenders being very generous when it comes to forebearance. For example, there are 28,000 households in arrears of over 10%..

No doubt those will be the ones repossessed next.

Note there isn't a category for people 15% in arrears..... Because they all get repossessed before it gets to that point.

As the total number of people in arrears is decreasing, and the pipeline of people getting into arrears of 5%+ is also decreasing, so the pipeline of people who will eventually be repossessed is decreasing.

Like it or not Graham, the situation is being managed effectively.

Graham_Devon

ess0two wrote: »

Someone buying a house and losing their job / ability to pay,a failed venture?

OK so the houses are repossessed or whatever?who foots the bill when these people need re-homing?

Should the taxpayer have intervened directly into woolworths, and mayb chosen to pay staff their wages, instead of seeing them lose their jobs....enabling woolworths to continue (allbeit, not paying for staff)?

Or should the government only have provided JSA for those who unfortunately lost their jobs?

Which would cost more? Proving support for those who needed it, and leaving those who found other jobs to start employment in other jobs....or paying the staff bill of woolworths, to stop staff becoming unemployed?