Windfall fears for over 1m interest only mortgage holders

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So you admit that, as you can't get such a product, your calculations based on such a product going forward are spurious as best!?

Isn't this a thread about existing IO holders and Hamish saying how they are in all likelyhood going to be fine?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Strawman

System

GhIFA wrote: »

(by the way, I'm no "HPI nutter", just someone that has looked at the report and taken a balanced view based on the facts it presents).

That'll be why you don't see eye to eye.

Graham_Devon

GhIFA wrote: »

Graham, how many people will have their homes repossessed at the end of their mortgage terms because they have made no provision for repaying the capital?? I'm not asking for absolute figures, just your thoughts really? A handful?, a few?, lots?

I know my thoughts.

I only ask because the report shows it will be hardly any, yet for some reason, you've taken this thread (which was obviously written as a tongue in cheek response to the overly negative reporting of the FCA review) into the realms of repossessions and a million households being in "trouble", for reasons that seem to be as spurious as you accuse others of being.

Read the report, put the figures in their real context and you'll see things are not as bad as you seem to want them to be. (by the way, I'm no "HPI nutter", just someone that has looked at the report and taken a balanced view based on the facts it presents).

I'll answer all of your points...

How many will be repossessed? Don't know. But that's not only what is being talked about here. What's being talked about is not just repossession but a forced sale.

You keep focusing on the repossession, but as an IFA, surely you can foresee the problems these people will have and the steps they will have to take to avoid repossession? That is....a forced sale.

I have not taken this thread solely into reposession. That is what has been focused on, and you are doing it again while ignoring everything else I have said. I have said, numerous times now that it's not just repossession that's the problem, but the facing up to, and forcing the sale before the repossession.

My very first post on this thread and the 2nd post on this thread I said:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So basically, you exchange your roof for this "windfall"!?

Exchange = sell, fore go.

On the 11th post on this thread I stated:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A forced sale....whether by reposession or facing up to and being forced to sell before the repo.....either way, it's not a windfall. Only a complete tool would try and convince themselves and others of this.

So quite why you keep trying to maintain I'm only talking of repos when it's been explained at least twice just on the first page is beyond me. Maybe you haven't read it? Maybe you have fallen for Hamish's railroading? I dunno. But it's been clear from the outset I'm talking about both repo and forced sales though owning up to the problem.

You are confusing what I've said for what it seems you would like me to have said. Quite clearly it's not what I have said though.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Isn't this a thread about existing IO holders and Hamish saying how they are in all likelyhood going to be fine?

Yep.

Despite The Muddler's frantic attempts to turn it into something else.:D

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yep.

Despite The Muddler's frantic attempts to turn it into something else.:D

Oh, were back to muddling? How original.

How about you read what I have wrote instead of pretending I have written something else so that you can make a point?

Too difficult? Easier to say "oh he's muddling again" to get a round of applause from all those who too can't argue their position to convince anyone but themselves?

GhIFA

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But that's not only what is being talked about here. What's being talked about is not just repossession but a forced sale.

You keep focusing on the repossession, but as an IFA, surely you can foresee the problems these people will have and the steps they will have to take to avoid repossession? That is....a forced sale.

I have not taken this thread solely into reposession. That is what has been focused on, and you are doing it again while ignoring everything else I have said. I have said, numerous times now that it's not just repossession that's the problem, but the facing up to, and forcing the sale before the repossession.

My very first post on this thread and the 2nd post on this thread I said:


Exchange = sell, fore go.

On the 11th post on this thread I stated:


So quite why you keep trying to maintain I'm only talking of repos when it's been explained at least twice just on the first page is beyond me. Maybe you haven't read it? Maybe you have fallen for Hamish's railroading? I dunno. But it's been clear from the outset I'm talking about both repo and forced sales though owning up to the problem.

You are confusing what I've said for what it seems you would like me to have said. Quite clearly it's not what I have said though.

Have you read the report Graham? I'm assuming not, as you are constantly focussing on a problem that the report doesn't highlight as being a problem.

Around 20% say that their repayment plan involves selling their house and downsizing. Less than 10% say it involves selling and not buying another property - that 10% have made a conscious decision therefore not to pay for their house, as they have plenty enough time to make plans for repaying if they wanted to.

There is no "time-bomb", there will be no glut of reposessions or "forced sales" - it would seem that where sales are being considered, they are being considered through choice, not necessity.

System

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yep.

Despite The Muddler's frantic attempts to turn it into something else.:D

Existing IO customers should be ok due to the following reasons... <snip>

Yeah but you can't get IO mortgages anymore STUPID!

roddydogs

Next week, the BBC reveals that lots of people are "In trouble" and cannot afford their heating bills due to the wicked power companies making the winter cold, and viciously putting their prices up.

Graham_Devon

GhIFA wrote: »

Have you read the report Graham? I'm assuming not, as you are constantly focussing on a problem that the report doesn't highlight as being a problem.

Around 20% say that their repayment plan involves selling their house and downsizing. Less than 10% say it involves selling and not buying another property - that 10% have made a conscious decision therefore not to pay for their house, as they have plenty enough time to make plans for repaying if they wanted to.

There is no "time-bomb", there will be no glut of reposessions or "forced sales" - it would seem that where sales are being considered, they are being considered through choice, not necessity.

OK - so what about the other 60% who are in the "problem" boat, but have not said what their intention is?

What do they do? Magic wand stuff?

What would you suggest they do as an IFA?

What you are suggesting here is there is no problem, around 30% have a "plan". Sorry, but what are you going to do with the 70%?

GhIFA

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK - so what about the other 60% who are in the "problem" boat, but have not said what their intention is?

What do they do? Magic wand stuff?

What would you suggest they do as an IFA?

What you are suggesting here is there is no problem, around 30% have a "plan". Sorry, but what are you going to do with the 70%?

Have you read the report Graham? I'm, again, assuming not.

Why are you so intent on finding a problem that research has shown isn't there?

Read the report, then you can come back and highlight yourself the errors you have made in your response.