Bank Bailout Ahoy!

Generali

cells wrote: »

because very few areas in the country cost 5.5 x joint full time incomes



and ~500,000 inheritances are left each year and significant gifts thought peoples lives to the tune of £100B-£200B a year in just lil ole Britain

But if you only want to look at the negative sides I guess you can.



Really?

What horror story happened in the UK. How many bank depositors lost their £££??

What about in the rest of Europe?

The USA?


Compare that to the horror story of screwing the finances and wealth and by extension well being and happiness of perhaps 10% of all households (about 3 million households with 7-8 million people) by imposing overtight regulations and rules on the banking system

The GFC didn't really cost anything in lost savings because the Governments of the world spent hundreds of billions on bailing the banks out. Plus spent trillions on deficit spending, plus the couple of trillion of lost GDP.....per year.

The trouble is, a trillion here and a trillion there and all of a sudden you're talking a lot of money. :money:

Apart from that the cost of the GFC was pretty much nil and on the bright side your mortgage is a bit cheaper.

According to the various branches of the Fed, simplistically the cost will be $7-25,000,000,000,000 to the US alone although if you are interested the full, and fascinating, article from the AFR (Australia's FT) is here:

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/foreign-affairs/so-how-much-did-the-gfc-cost-20140121-iy7vy

Surely you aren't trying to argue that the GFC was costless. That would be mental.

mwpt

Generali wrote: »

Surely you aren't trying to argue that the GFC was costless. That would be mental.

But that was caused by a property market over there. Over here you can't lose in British bricks and mortar.

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

But that was caused by a property market over there. Over here you can't lose in British bricks and mortar.

That rather depends on where you buy:

padington

Generali wrote: »

Why would they be a singleton? There is nothing to suggest that.

And don't forget, couples have kids as a rule so incomes go down and expenses go up.

We've seen the ending of this movie and it's a horrorshow.

This is the movie ....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/

The problem wasn't caused by stringent UK mortgages to very high earning and well qualified couples.

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

5.5x income having demonstrated no ability to save is a story and TBH we all know what happens next.

At 5.5x in most parts of the country that would mean they'd skipped the first couple of rungs of the housing ladder and in a place they're more likely to be in for a long time.

I never saved a deposit. If they're like me they'll find there's nothing like an A1 priority debt to focus the mind on what spending matters and what doesn't.

They'll be reet.

mwpt

padington wrote: »

This is the movie ....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/

The problem wasn't caused by stringent UK mortgages to very high earning and well qualified couples.

So that means we can start offering 100% self cert mortgages again. Booyah!

cells

Generali wrote: »

The GFC didn't really cost anything in lost savings because the Governments of the world spent hundreds of billions on bailing the banks out. Plus spent trillions on deficit spending, plus the couple of trillion of lost GDP.....per year.

The trouble is, a trillion here and a trillion there and all of a sudden you're talking a lot of money. :money:

Apart from that the cost of the GFC was pretty much nil and on the bright side your mortgage is a bit cheaper.

According to the various branches of the Fed, simplistically the cost will be $7-25,000,000,000,000 to the US alone although if you are interested the full, and fascinating, article from the AFR (Australia's FT) is here:

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/foreign-affairs/so-how-much-did-the-gfc-cost-20140121-iy7vy

Surely you aren't trying to argue that the GFC was costless. That would be mental.

The recession like all recessions have a 'cost'. The last one was not the first and it wont be the last.

What I am saying or suggesting is that the banks giving out self cert mortgages played no part in the recession certainly not the UK banks giving out self cert mortgages because the self cert was backed by higher deposits more often than not. How much did the uk or European or even the USA banks actually lose on 'sub prime loans'

When you think of that make sure you look at the value of those loans in 2007 vs today not on the value of the loans in 2008/9/10 as that would be cherry picking highs and lows in stock prices to try and prove a point


Here is a share graph of a uk builder. It started around 200p a share 10 years ago and then crashed to almost zero at the height of the crisis and now it has recovered to about 200p. I suspect this is representative of the financial crash. The markets grossly misspriced on the downside things like builders and sub prime loans. The world didn't end people just got on with it.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=taylor%20wimpey%20share%20price

cells

mwpt wrote: »

But that was caused by a property market over there. Over here you can't lose in British bricks and mortar.

You can lose in British Bricks and Mortar if those bricks are glued together in Stoke-On-Trent but its a lot harder to lose in areas where the population is growing rapidly eg the SE

Also its a simple truth the UK did not suffer a huge nominal crash nor was there mass defaults.

Even Ireland the poster child of a housing and bankiung bubble on steroids is now inn a 'Irish recovery exposes acute housing shortage'
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/15bb4d40-4714-11e5-b3b2-1672f710807b.html#axzz47mXEv6Ht

cells

mwpt wrote: »

So that means we can start offering 100% self cert mortgages again. Booyah!

100% self cert is not needed

80% Self cert is needed

95-100% LTV Prime is needed

A hybrid of Interest only would also be useful. Something like 5 years IO and then 25 years Repayment. Maybe with a 5 year taper so from year 5-10 it goes slowly from IO to part IO to full repayment.

mwpt

cells wrote: »

100% self cert is not needed

80% Self cert is needed

95-100% LTV Prime is needed

A hybrid of Interest only would also be useful. Something like 5 years IO and then 25 years Repayment. Maybe with a 5 year taper so from year 5-10 it goes slowly from IO to part IO to full repayment.

Err, how am I going to afford something like this if I don't have access to 100% IO mortgage at 0.5% rates?