MSE News: Santander to raise mortgage SVR in blow to borrowers

laptop80

It's rare to see such open bitterness outside the housepricecrash.co.uk forum. I suspect it's not worth the time to address your sweeping, assumptive and frankly one-eyed viewpoints, so best of luck to you while you wait for an affordable repossessed home, or my preference, the wider availability of good social housing.

A little perspective on 'fairness' though - the generation before the baby boomers got a significantly worse deal than you. That was the reality of their situation, just as high house prices are the current reality of ours. Life is not fair or just and never has been, however much we all might want it to be.

WibbleSnarf

tifo wrote: »

Of course you would include the banks in that opinion and agree that they should not have received the govt's (taxpayer's) sympathy and been allowed to default?

I would agree with that 100%

squeeks

The banks that couldn't manage their balance sheets should have been allowed to go to the wall. I think a few key individuals should go to prison as well for their part in the whole debacle.

WibbleSnarf

laptop80 wrote: »

It's rare to see such open bitterness outside the housepricecrash.co.uk forum. I suspect it's not worth the time to address your sweeping, assumptive and frankly one-eyed viewpoints, so best of luck to you while you wait for an affordable repossessed home, or my preference, the wider availability of good social housing.

A little perspective on 'fairness' though - the generation before the baby boomers got a significantly worse deal than you. That was the reality of their situation, just as high house prices are the current reality of ours. Life is not fair or just and never has been, however much we all might want it to be.

How is it bitterness? Rather than call my hope for affordable homes for younger people 'bitter', why don't you try countering my arguments instead? I'd much sooner have a good debate about this than let it descend into trite soundbites - surely you would too?

And I have a decent perspective on fairness, thanks. So 'decent', in fact, that I must confess that I have enough cash spread across a few bank accounts to buy a house outright today should I choose to do so but my family and work circumstances are such that renting makes more sense for us at the moment. So my 'perspective' on fairness is to speak up for those who barely get represented on fora like this or in the mainstream media.

Life's not fair, you're right, but it takes people like me who find this kind of unfairness abhorrent to stand up to those who condone it.

laptop80

Yes, your taking glee on internet forums in the misfortune of people who are struggling with mortgage payments makes a positive difference to the UK's housing situation. You are in no way simply gloating or doing anything but fighting for the oppressed. Keep it up.

WibbleSnarf

laptop80 wrote: »

Yes, your taking glee on internet forums in the misfortune of people who are struggling with mortgage payments makes a positive difference to the UK's housing situation. You are in no way simply gloating or doing anything but fighting for the oppressed. Keep it up.

How is it misfortune? Like I already said, nobody forced these people to borrow beyond their means. If they'd been appropriately diligent, assessed the risks properly and either not taken the risks or insured themselves against the risks (in the case of those who can no longer afford the repayments because of unforeseeable changes in circumstances such as disability or redundancy) then they wouldn't be struggling to make the mortgage repayments. That's not misfortune, it's a fairly inevitable consequence of reckless decision making.

The way that a lowering of house prices would make a positive difference to the UK's housing situation is that people would have to borrow less to buy a place to live and their cost of living would go down, leaving them with more money in their pockets to other things. I fail to see how that's anything but positive, both for the UK's housing situation and for the wider economy, where that saved money would otherwise be spent.

laptop80

How about a tiny bit of humanity, eh? Many of the people who are struggling did not get where they are now out of greed or stupidity. Situations change, families break up, jobs are lost. Even those things that you can insure against are not always affordable or practical to do so. Others over reached out of fear they would never be able to buy their own home if they didn't while they had the chance, not through a desire to make a profit.

Showing compassion for these people does not preclude also having compassion for people who have never been able to buy a home; we should be able to recognise that both groups are in bad positions without having to take one side against the other or wishing ill on people because 'they deserve it'. You wouldn't go to a hospital ward and lecture lung cancer patients about how they brought it on themselves by smoking would you? Or say the NHS will be better off and better able to serve sensible, risk-averse people once they are dead through their own stupid, selfish actions? Hopefully not.

You must know in your heart that sticking the knife in, and that is all you are doing whatever your aspirations of being a moral crusader, on a thread where people who are affected by the rate increases and wanting to talk about them are likely to come is both an unhelpful and inhumane thing to do.

The best of it is, as a HPC poster you *know* that it's all ultimately driven by market forces anyway, so what you say will make no difference to the path house prices take. Anyway, carry on as you please, I won't be posting in this thread any more.

WibbleSnarf

laptop80 wrote: »

How about a tiny bit of humanity, eh? Many of the people who are struggling did not get where they are now out of greed or stupidity. Situations change, families break up, jobs are lost. Even those things that you can insure against are not always affordable or practical to do so. Others over reached out of fear they would never be able to buy their own home if they didn't while they had the chance, not through a desire to make a profit.

Showing compassion for these people does not preclude also having compassion for people who have never been able to buy a home; we should be able to recognise that both groups are in bad positions without having to take one side against the other or wishing ill on people because 'they deserve it'. You wouldn't go to a hospital ward and lecture lung cancer patients about how they brought it on themselves by smoking would you? Or say the NHS will be better off and better able to serve sensible, risk-averse people once they are dead through their own stupid, selfish actions? Hopefully not.

You must know in your heart that sticking the knife in, and that is all you are doing whatever your aspirations of being a moral crusader, on a thread where people who are affected by the rate increases and wanting to talk about them are likely to come is both an unhelpful and inhumane thing to do.

The best of it is, as a HPC poster you *know* that it's all ultimately driven by market forces anyway, so what you say will make no difference to the path house prices take. Anyway, carry on as you please, I won't be posting in this thread any more.

Where was the humanity when prices were on the way up. If you're asking me about what I know in my heart, you must equally ask what you know in yours, and that is that people got greedy. Of course, there are some who didn't, but there are many, many, many who did.

I don't know whether or not it's possible to insure yourself against family break up in the context of a mortgage and I don't doubt for one moment that there are some 'victims' but job loss is no excuse - there are insurance policies for that. If you want to take the risk of not insuring yourself, you have nobody but yourself to blame when that decision comes back to bite you. That might not be a very fluffy thing to say but until people start taking responsility for their own financial security rather than hoping it'll all turn out fine, it won't wash with me, or vast swathes of the priced-out generation, when they expect some sympathy.

The reason I have little compassion for these people is that they contributed to the problem. You see, the only reason the bubble kept inflating is that more and more people chose to keep that inflation going without a thought for those who were left behind. Where was their compassion when they contributed to the boom? As you say, both groups are in bad positions but one is there as a consequence of their actions while the other is not. My compassion will be applied accordingly.

And as for lung cancer patients and the NHS, that's amazingly topical for me at the moment! My 5-year old son has been diagnosed with a condition in recent weeks which means he'll probably need hearing aids for a few years until the condition (hopefully) cures itself. The lady from the NHS asked how he is getting on at school and the answer, I'm proud to be able to say, is that he's getting on very well. Although not solely as a result of the teaching he receives at school but in large part because my wife spends ungodly numbers of hours with our children reading, writing, drawing and all manner of creative play. The NHS lady then said that 'because his condition is not affecting him at school' there will be 'financial challenges' getting the NHS to fund his hearing aids and, if we want him to have them, we will have to pay for them ourselves. So, to answer your question, yes - I think the NHS has its priorities *utterly* wrong in some cases. How can it ever be right that a 5 year old does not have his hearing taken care of by the NHS while alcoholics, drug abusers, smokers and the obese all get treatments for their self-inflicted conditions funded ahead of him?

And how can my posts on the subject not be considered helpful? Sure, they do little to help those on this thread who have go themselves into a mess but until the public psyche changes on the fabled housing 'ladder', posts like mine which can give people an alternative perspective to that constantly spewed by the mainstream media may help save a few people from making the same mistake.

Oh, and it's because I'm an HPC poster that I *know* that it's *not* all ultimately driven by market forces in the sense that most people understand it (supply/demand). It's driven by sentiment and the availability of credit. Sentiment, like an oil tanker, is inching around day by day as it slowly dawns on people that it was never sustainable (even my mother-in-law who was telling my wife and I to buy a house about 18 months ago now conveniently forgets ever saying such a thing and says that the way prices went up was insane, and if she's saying it, sentiment is most definitely changing). Credit availability remains, in practice, very restricted too, with tough-to-achieve LTVs, big arrangement fees etc.

It's a shame you've decided not to post on this thread any more, though. It's only through having discussions such as this that some people get a different perspective on things. Nice chatting to you, though.

BobQ

WibbleSnarf wrote: »

.
........... I think it's only right that those who overstretched lose their homes as they actively contributed to keeping homes out of reach of those poorer or more risk-averse than themselves.

I think I agree with virtually all your post except the last sentence. Many people have been swept along by the politicians, media and financial services industry convincing them that buying a house is the thing to do. Some have been more cautious than others and some have sufferred for over committing themselves. But to say that its right that those who overcommitted themselves should suffer by losing their homes is a step too far.

I know people who have been reckless and maybe got their just deserts. But equally I know decent people who just made poor decisions and did not understand the level of risk they were taking on. They were just conned by a system that they did not understand or unlucky but they did not deserve to lose their homes. They may have actively contributed to lots of things but they never intended it.

eschaton

A few years ago you would have been happy paying 4.74% but with the BR where it is, SVR's are getting a bit on the high side.

You can't beat a BR tracker mortgage these days.