Remember Fergus Wilson?

OffGridLiving

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Business is asset rich but cash poor. So selling off properties to reduce debt burden has probably resulted in a stronger but smaller business. Offloading multiple properties in the same locality too quickly would have caused a price depression. Which would not have been to the lenders benefit.

According to another poster, these people didn't have to sell properties in the end, though as you rightly point out they could have sold some to bolster the rest.

What people seem to forget when they state that these people 'got lucky because low rates saved them' is that the reason we have low rates was because of the banking crisis and the reason these people (and others) struggled was because of the banking crisis.

In other words, if the banking crisis hadn't happened then these people wouldn't have needed the low mortgage rates to 'save them'.

Graham_Devon

OffGridLiving wrote: »

In other words, if the banking crisis hadn't happened then these people wouldn't have needed the low mortgage rates to 'save them'.

The banking crisis was, in part, caused by this sort of lending in the first place. Hence why they and their lenders became victims.

If you were not party of the lending party, generally you didn't come unstuck due to the bursting of the balloon.

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You've thanked pricklepants post making a mockery of the fact I said he got lucky.

I didn't make any mockery, I agreed with you he got lucky.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You then state "he got lucky". Which no doubt pricklepants will thank you for.

Already done.

OffGridLiving

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The banking crisis was, in part, caused by this sort of lending in the first place.

The global banking crisis was caused by BTL?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The banking crisis was, in part, caused by this sort of lending in the first place..

Not in the UK it wasn't.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not in the UK it wasn't.

Indeed.

Look Hamish, if the Bank in question was going to go bust due to the Wilsons going bust, then in my opinion, suggesting that this sort of lending was part of the reason banks went bust is fair.

I knowyour position on the US, it's been debated to death an dyou just say the same thing over and over again.

But if a bank is going to go bust because of it's lending to customers, then I think it's fair to say this sort of lending was a symptom of the banks going bust.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right, so whats the problem then. As that's what I said.

I thought we were all agreed that they got lucky. This seems to have been misinterpreted as you keep saying the Wilson's are considered financial geniuses. By who?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are not really here to discuss the issue are you? Just here to try and argue again.

Well I am really because I asked why the lender would go under if they got ill or died. Also asked a couple of times what you think happens to houses when people die.

If you really wanted to discuss the issues why don't you have a think about these things instead of ignoring them?

I'm trying to understand why 'bad things might happen'. You either have the data or a rough idea of what it shows or you're just unthinkingly buying into the narrative.

I ask again, what happens to houses when people die and why will the lender fail if the Wilsons get ill or die? You must have an idea about the chances of the lender recovering the equity and the Wilsons estate planning to be so angry about this.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I thought we were all agreed that they got lucky.

I dunno, seems myself and another 2 posters have taken issue with Pricklepants interpretation of agreement.

Anyway, not gonng sit here all day defending myself. It;s clear this thread has turned into a "us against them" thread with the usual reno, wotsthat, prickly and hamish circle. See reno is now chipping in with his muddling pretending I stated BTL lending caused the banking crisis. Sweet eh.

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I dunno, seems myself and another 2 posters have taken issue with Pricklepants interpretation of agreement.

Jesus Graham. There's no two ways of reading post 26. Really not.

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

I don't think they are geniuses, and yes they got lucky.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I dunno, seems myself and another 2 posters have taken issue with Pricklepants interpretation of agreement.

Anyway, not gonng sit here all day defending myself. It;s clear this thread has turned into a "us against them" thread with the usual reno, wotsthat, prickly and hamish circle. See reno is now chipping in with his muddling pretending I stated BTL lending caused the banking crisis. Sweet eh.

Well it's a bit ripe saying I don't want to discuss the issues when you're doing your utmost to ignore them. Who cares whether the Wilsons were a bit lucky, extremely lucky or the jammiest gits alive.

I ask again, what happens to houses when people die and why will the lender fail if the Wilsons get ill or die? You must have an idea about the chances of the lender recovering the equity and the Wilsons estate planning to be so angry about this.

You're not really here to discuss the issues.