Nearly one million face mortgage difficulty.

antrobus

Thrugelmir wrote: »

According to UKAR the balance sheet was £49.7 billion.

Think you may confusing the amount still owed to the Treasury from the loan advanced to plug the liquidity hole back in 2008....

God knows were you get your numbers from.:) I am looking at a copy of NRAM's financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2015, and I can tell you now that Loans to Customers amounted to £25,366.8 m, and that the amount outstanding on the HM Treasury loan was £13,656.1m.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

...If you consider 389,000 mortgage customers holding 455,000 mortgage accounts along with 110,000 unsecured loan account customers SFA.

UKAR does indeed have 389,000 mortgage and loan customers, but they are not all NRAM; a lot of them will be B&B.

Maybe that's where you are getting confused; you haven't grasped that UKAR = NRAM+B&B.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

...You must know something about the business which I don't.

I know how to read a set of accounts, if that's what you mean.:)

Thrugelmir wrote: »

...Can't see UKAR having the capacity to redeem over 400 accounts a day over the next 4 years.

If you had been paying attention, you would know that UKAR are currently seeking offers for NRAM's Granite book; that's £13 billion worth of loans, or about half of what NRAM have left.

antrobus

Electrum wrote: »

No but what percentage are only paying the interest? ...

According to NRAM;

At 31 March 2015 40% (2014: 40%) of the Group's residential mortgage accounts (excluding buy-to-let) held by 81,143 (2014: 98,439) customers were 'interest only' with 74% (2014: 75%) of these having more than ten years until maturity.

Electrum wrote: »

...If you are on I.O mortgage then you are basically renting off the bank, but YOU are responsible for upkeep. If its about the same money per month, I would rather rent and the landlord is responsible for upkeep.

Oddly enough, that landlord would likely take out an IO mortgage and be perfectly happy being responsible for the upkeep given the expectation of rent rises plus capital gains. People have different attitudes towards uncertain future events.

Electrum

antrobus wrote: »

Oddly enough, that landlord would likely take out an IO mortgage and be perfectly happy being responsible for the upkeep given the expectation of rent rises plus capital gains. People have different attitudes towards uncertain future events.

That is very big assumption that rents and house prices will go up anymore from here.

Looking at how much property has already gone up of recent times, I would not assume it will go up that much more before the long awaited correction is due.

Thrugelmir

antrobus wrote: »

Well you did state that "Much of the good business has been sold off to other lenders. What's remaining is the not so good." I am simply noting that 85% of the remaining is not in arrears and therefore seems perfectly good to me.

Took the Treasury some 7 months to unravel Northern Rocks loan books and decide that nationalisation was the only option. The report published spoke for itself. Your attitude is similar to that Lloyds had in acquiring HBOS. The consequences speak for themselves.

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Took the Treasury some 7 months to unravel Northern Rocks loan books and decide that nationalisation was the only option. The report published spoke for itself. Your attitude is similar to that Lloyds had in acquiring HBOS. The consequences speak for themselves.

If NRAM is the basket case and even they only have 81,000 IO mortgages of which 75% aren't due for repayment for a decade at the earliest it's fairly obvious the Citizens Advice survey is flawed or misinterpreted.

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

If NRAM is the basket case and even they only have 81,000 IO mortgages of which 75% aren't due for repayment for a decade at the earliest it's fairly obvious the Citizens Advice survey is flawed or misinterpreted.

The numbers are significant enough to suggest that the issue is a problem for many people. Simply glossing over the issue as if it doesn't exist is nonsense. As much of the risk lending could be concentrated in localised issues. Which will compound the problem.

antrobus

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Took the Treasury some 7 months to unravel Northern Rocks loan books and decide that nationalisation was the only option. The report published spoke for itself. Your attitude is similar to that Lloyds had in acquiring HBOS. The consequences speak for themselves.

My attitude is quite simple. As at 31 March 2015 NRAM had £25,366.8 m of customer loans outstanding, and the fair value of the collateral was £24,263.6 m, therefore there is only about £1.1 billion at risk.

It has been seven years since NR was nationalised, all the real carp has already been repod, written off, or provided against.

antrobus

Electrum wrote: »

That is very big assumption that rents and house prices will go up anymore from here.

Looking at how much property has already gone up of recent times, I would not assume it will go up that much more before the long awaited correction is due.

People have different attitudes towards uncertain future events.

CLAPTON

Electrum wrote: »

That is very big assumption that rents and house prices will go up anymore from here.

Looking at how much property has already gone up of recent times, I would not assume it will go up that much more before the long awaited correction is due.

are you planning on selling and moving into rented, so you can buy back cheaper later?

wymondham

Electrum wrote: »

No but what percentage are only paying the interest?

If you are on I.O mortgage then you are basically renting off the bank, but YOU are responsible for upkeep. If its about the same money per month, I would rather rent and the landlord is responsible for upkeep.

The 'renting off the bank' idea is often floated. If you did truly rent then you would not be able to sell and realise the profits (hopefully there will be some!).... not quite the same....