50% house price falls

Austin_Allegro

I thought the 'refugee' Oliver looked a little like one of those caricatures the Nazis used to come out with - you know, 'rootless cosmopolitans' and all that.

I also thought the men would have been intelligent enough to come out with some sort of IOU/scrip system of their own devising, rather than falling for everything a dodgy white faced banker told them!

HugoSP

dannyboycey wrote: »

And create a recession in the UK!

How is this going to happen?

GracieP

Austin_Allegro wrote: »

STR = sell to rent

Well that was obvious wasn't it.:o

shop-to-drop

If house prices fell by 50% then perhaps people would stop buying houses purely as investment and then people could live in the house they need for their family to be comfortable rather than the best that they can afford.

If it happens quickly enough then maybe I could even have one more baby which I would dearly love.

Bring it on!

hgllgh

The NR debacle has highlighted the need for greater regulation of the mortgage industry. If this can be done for pensions then why not for mortgages? Should we have something like stakeholder mortgages where fees, charges multiples etc are within defined limits, but also where the funding for the loan is based on sound deposits, not a financial merry-go-round that is ulimately destabalised by the US property market ?

This would provide a degree of protection for both borrowers and savers alike.

The need for something to be done is put forward very well below ...

codger wrote: »

No. It isn't. Because it isn't accurate.

What would be accurate would be a condemnation of all those banks and building societies which set out to make a fast buck (and succeeded) by luring in "self certifying" borrowers, each one of whom then acted like a stone thrown into a pond and sent out ripples in every community by buying that which they most likely could not afford at a price most likely beyond credible, sustainable, market value.

What would also be accurate would be a condemnation of all those banks and building societies which set out to make a fast buck (and succeeded) by ostensibly reducing mortgage interest rates in a baffling plethora of short-term deals whilst inventing ludicrously high "arrangement fees" and similar charges which are then tacked onto, and included within, the overall mortgage repayment.

At every turn and in every aspect of the UK property market the sharks have massed for an easy kill, and in every unsuspecting property buyer they've found exactly the victim they were after.

The banks and the building societies especially knew exactly what they were doing when it came to exploiting that most human of ambitions of all: the desire to own one's own home.

They knew what they were doing in driving the market up through cheap loans, through irresponsible loans, through indefensible loans, because it was profit all the way -- and hey, if the poor suckers who bought then discovered they couldn't afford to continue on in occupation, no problem: house repossession causes no pain to anyone other than the loser.

The housing boom was fuelled by personal need as well as by personal greed, but the greatest greed was, as ever, that of those who, like Northern Rock, saw in their borrowers a potential for ever greater corporate profit

hgllgh

I started the post above as a seperate new thread as I thought it would be interesting to see views in this issue so please reply to the new thread

Generali

hgllgh wrote: »

The NR debacle has highlighted the need for greater regulation of the mortgage industry. If this can be done for pensions then why not for mortgages? Should we have something like stakeholder mortgages where fees, charges multiples etc are within defined limits, but also where the funding for the loan is based on sound deposits, not a financial merry-go-round that is ulimately destabalised by the US property market ?

This would provide a degree of protection for both borrowers and savers alike.

The need for something to be done is put forward very well below ...

My thought is that the whole NRK thing is, in part, a failure of regulation.

As they were making risky loans under the rules they should have held more in their reserves as per something called Basel II. That they didn't can be seen as a failing of the FSA and the Board of Northern Wreck.

I don't think that making huge numbers of rules and burying everyone in red tape is the way forward. Just make sure that capital adequacy and reserve rules are sufficient and properly enforced.

WTF?_2

hgllgh wrote: »

The NR debacle has highlighted the need for greater regulation of the mortgage industry. If this can be done for pensions then why not for mortgages? Should we have something like stakeholder mortgages where fees, charges multiples etc are within defined limits, but also where the funding for the loan is based on sound deposits, not a financial merry-go-round that is ulimately destabalised by the US property market ?

This would provide a degree of protection for both borrowers and savers alike.

The need for something to be done is put forward very well below ...

Yep - if the financial institutions can get themselves into the situation where the state must bail them out or it hurts the entire country, they should expect much tougher regulation of their operations.

I doubt we'll see that happen though. They'll squeal and whine about how those inconvenient rules about being prudent and showing a decent level of risk-aversion prevents them from making the top brass obscenely rich and that's bad for the country.

Oh, but once we've messed up the system to the point where entire financial systems are under threat we'll take a taxpayer funded bailout and put the entire population under the cosh of inflation to save our hides, thank you very much.....

They really must be laughing all the way to the bank. Heads they win, tails they can't lose.

santashelper_2

ive got a better idea why dont we abolish money altogether give people houses to live in for free and no one has to worry about anything ever again:j :j

ok maybe thats expecting to much but we always seem to be held to randsom over something or another when it comes to money people just want to live life not worry and have no life.

It was like the situation with endowments nobody thought there would be a big issue with these but there was basically we are all dangled a carrot and then executed when we get to near to the carrot dont you sometimes want to throw in the towel and say enough is enough and im sick of being held to randsom by a country that supports people who emigrate here gets first rights to every thing although they have not contributed anything why is everyone so prepared to accept this way of life and do nothing about it.

BobProperty

Generali wrote: »

My thought is that the whole NRK thing is, in part, a failure of regulation.

As they were making risky loans under the rules they should have held more in their reserves as per something called Basel II. That they didn't can be seen as a failing of the FSA and the Board of Northern Wreck.

I don't think that making huge numbers of rules and burying everyone in red tape is the way forward. Just make sure that capital adequacy and reserve rules are sufficient and properly enforced.

I'll say it again here too, the mutual Building Societies must be either laughing or saying "good job we didn't sell out". Northern Rock could never have made the numbers of mortgages it did without becoming a bank. Mutual societies may have faults but lending to deposit ratios isn't one of them.