We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
'We've reached a tipping point' Signs of house price weakness
Options
Comments
-
The bank never owns the property on which a mortgage is secured.The proof of who owns a house is on in the Land Registry records and I can assure you it will not be the bank.
Although, there is some evidence that some possessions are purchased by a bank shell Company to remove what was a potential bad debt from their books to magically turn it into a paid off mortgage and a new asset ( the interest in the shell firms newly acquired property)
An accounting slight of hand.
Probably illegal on several levels.0 -
The bank never owns the property on which a mortgage is secured.
Everyone knew that. Well nearly everyone.Although, there is some evidence that some possessions are purchased by a bank shell Company to remove what was a potential bad debt from their books to magically turn it into a paid off mortgage and a new asset ( the interest in the shell firms newly acquired property)
An accounting slight of hand.
Probably illegal on several levels.
Disposing of the repossession, depending on the equity, will clear the debt and the mortgage will be paid off (no magic involved).
I doubt lenders want to be directly selling repossessions so it would be no surprise they use a subsidiary company. Or would it?
Where's the evidence, what does it prove and what laws are being broken?0 -
Everyone knew that. Well nearly everyone.
Disposing of the repossession, depending on the equity, will clear the debt and the mortgage will be paid off (no magic involved).
I doubt lenders want to be directly selling repossessions so it would be no surprise they use a subsidiary company. Or would it?
Where's the evidence, what does it prove and what laws are being broken?
Its not a repossession as the bank never owned it to re-possess it.
let me explain the point..the Bank "invests", lets say 100K in the shell company.
Lets say the mortgage in arrears is 100K
Bank gets possession order and the shell buys the property.
this is not an arms length sale...the shell pays the owner the 100K who passes it on to the bank..bank is now clear, the owner has lost all. the shell now owes the bank100K of its own money, and has an asset valued at 100K.
Its magic.0 -
Doesn't that assume the property is only worth the mortgage arrears where it could be worth more.Its not a repossession as the bank never owned it to re-possess it.
let me explain the point..the Bank "invests", lets say 100K in the shell company.
Lets say the mortgage in arrears is 100K
Bank gets possession order and the shell buys the property.
this is not an arms length sale...the shell pays the owner the 100K who passes it on to the bank..bank is now clear, the owner has lost all. the shell now owes the bank100K of its own money, and has an asset valued at 100K.
Its magic.0 -
you miss the point..the Bank "invests", lets say 100K in the shell company.
Lets say the mortgage in arrears is 100K
Bank gets possession order and the shell buys the property.
this is not an arms length sale...the shell pays the owner the 100K who passes it on to the bank..bank is now clear, the owner has lost all. the shell now owes the bank100K of its own money, and has an asset valued at 100K.
Its magic.
The owner hasn't lost anything - they've sold the house and cleared the liability. Net position between owner and bank. £0.
The shell company owns a £100k house and owes the bank £100k. Net position between shell company and bank. £0.
I now understand why when quizzed about this scandal Google could only find a thread on HPC from 2009.0 -
The owner hasn't lost anything - they've sold the house and cleared the liability. Net position between owner and bank. £0.
The shell company owns a £100k house and owes the bank £100k. Net position between shell company and bank. £0.
I now understand why when quizzed about this scandal Google could only find a thread on HPC from 2009.
Its a scam that is not often discussed...if you google for tax avoidance for the rich, you will find this particular one.
The losers here are the market, possibly the person in arrears.
Meanwhile, the bank now owns property which it shouldnt, it has converted a bad debt into an asset, and avoided a tax liability to boot.
It is a sort of reverse Off Balance Sheet vehicle.
many of the big mortgage banks have shell companies to "handle" their possessions....this keeps homes of the market, and provides serious competition for the BTL.
Anyway, my point was that this wouldnt even be possible if the bank owned the property at any stage.
Thought you guys would be pleased that an HPC poster supports your case.0 -
to correct you, the net position between the shell and the bank is 100K in shares.The owner hasn't lost anything - they've sold the house and cleared the liability. Net position between owner and bank. £0.
The shell company owns a £100k house and owes the bank £100k. Net position between shell company and bank. £0.
I now understand why when quizzed about this scandal Google could only find a thread on HPC from 2009.0 -
Crashy_Time wrote: »If you are servicing debt on a property you don`t own it.
Why do you keep posting things which you surely know to be wrong?
My name is on the deeds, so I of course own it. I do have a small mortgage, but that does not change ownership and, as I've said previously, I am fortunate to be in possession of enough liquid assets that I could clear the mortgage if I needed to.
Why do you insist on this "hit and run" posting style, by the way? You make a point, it is debunked, and you just ignore that and change the point under discussion. You must know that it is not an adult way to discuss an issue, you seem more to want to annoy people than actually go over the issues that you raise.
Through it all you seem to want to crow about your brilliant insight to people who seem to have made wiser decisions than you. Your argument seems to be "oh, but you'll see, I'll be shown right one day".0 -
-
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards