Parents should offer their homes as guarentees

purch

Yeah, their sources of funding dried up, because their lending/mortgage book was so bad, nobody would lend to them at levels that would make their !!!!-poor high risk business model work.

The idea that you can measure the quality of a lending book purely by the number of default events is puerile in the extreme.

CLAPTON

purch wrote: »

Yeah, their sources of funding dried up, because their lending/mortgage book was so bad, nobody would lend to them at levels that would make their !!!!-poor high risk business model work.

The idea that you can measure the quality of a lending book purely by the number of default events is puerile in the extreme.

Well the context of NR's failure to fund their loan book was in the context of a global meltdown due to the securitisation of US junk debt.

Purile or otherwise, I don't think the bankruptcy was a reflection of the specifics of NR loan book but on their reliance on a borrowing model that had collapsed globally.

lippy1923

Why should there be 100% mortgages? Why not do it the old fashioned way and save up for a decent deposit? Its not that hard!

globalds

or maybe just accept that the traditional balance between house prices and the people who want to live in them being able to buy them , is not at present seen in the system.
Maybe home ownership is not going to be as common as days gone by ..

C_Mababejive

As per post #1,no parents shouldnt rush to prop up a failed system which will then allow the continuance of an unsustainable market,allowing those with vested interests to continue to rake off profit and leading to an even more calamitous collapse at some future date. Have we not yet learned anything....?

pogofish

Why not kick the greedy/profiteers out of the market by removing their properties then cap the cost of housing down to a reasonable level in relation to real world earnings.

Then people can buy and pay all by themselves.

A._Badger

pogofish wrote: »

Why not kick the greedy/profiteers out of the market by removing their properties then cap the cost of housing down to a reasonable level in relation to real world earnings.

Then people can buy and pay all by themselves.

Dear Comrade Lenin.....

chewmylegoff

pogofish wrote: »

Why not kick the greedy/profiteers out of the market by removing their properties then cap the cost of housing down to a reasonable level in relation to real world earnings.

Then people can buy and pay all by themselves.

What a great idea. What else can we sort out whilst we're at it? Perhaps pass a law saying everyone has to be nice to each other then we won't need to pay for a police force.

Loughton_Monkey

pogofish wrote: »

Why not kick the greedy/profiteers out of the market by removing their properties then cap the cost of housing down to a reasonable level in relation to real world earnings.

Then people can buy and pay all by themselves.

Wow!

Looks like we have some intelligent thinking on the boards at last.

I can start on the first item. There are enough unemployed people around - at minimum wage I hope, because I wouldn't pay a penny more - to go round house to house to observe which are the greedy ones and the profiteers. Simple questions should suffice. "How much did you pay and when? What is it worth now?". Anyone with more than a 2% profit per year is surely a candidate, and will need to be kicked out.

While I'm building up this list, I'll leave it to you to gather the tanks and brown-shirted army to evict all these profiteers from their houses.

Small problem... getting the government to introduce the 'cap' you want, but we will put our own cap on the houses we re-possess. About £50K each sounds about right. That's affordable housing isn't it? If we get enough of them, we'll control the market won't we?

Where do we start? Loughton? Should have the red flag flying here by Christmas. Where next? Chigwell... Epping... Chipping Ongar... Buckhurst Hill...

Boy am I getting excited....

Let's go.....

Linton

purch wrote: »

Yeah, their sources of funding dried up, because their lending/mortgage book was so bad, nobody would lend to them at levels that would make their !!!!-poor high risk business model work.

The idea that you can measure the quality of a lending book purely by the number of default events is puerile in the extreme.

Err no. Their source of funding dried up because no-one in the world wanted to lend ANY bank any money. Potential lenders didnt know whose asset base was compromised by the US sub prime mortgages.