House Price Crash Discussion Thread

PasturesNew

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Lots of students, though?

Yes, and god help those trying to get to the kebab van on the market late at night. Damned plummy voices!

Another "great fun" thing was splashing through puddles when they had their May Balls. Not that we knew what they were all about. We just knew they wore posh outfits and tickets were £100 each.

My proudest moments were gatecrashing as many May Balls as I could. I've done most of them over the years. The only one I didn't get into was Kings College. Went down to spec it out, but took a fluffy-headed blond with me. No b4lls .... So I took her round the environs, looked at the options, then told her how we were going to get in ... and she chickened out. I was annoyed, I'd heard they had a whole roast pig.

Never mind, I managed to get some roast pig at Robinsons later that year.

PasturesNew

pickledtink wrote: »

The censor doobrey wouldn't let me use it. However there you are flaunting the dreaded T word with unbridled impunity without rebuke!
You obviously know people in high places......

You mean the people upstairs?
No, but I am intimate with their pre-slumber habits thanks to the unforgiving nature of cheap laminate flooring

I've no idea why you couldn't say tart though.

pickledtink

m00m00 wrote: »

one of the main differences between now and then though, is the massive rise of short term fixes on mortgages, and people remortgaging multiple times during the lifetime of a mortgage.

also there's been a reluctance of banks to insist on compulsory 'repayment vehicles' during the boom time.

people on interest only mortgages are far more exposed to house price falls when it comes to remortgage, especially if LTV criteria has become stricter. At least with a repayment mortgage people have been chipping away at the capital.

Absolutely. Of course repayment is better but we're talking about people who are paying interest only out of hardship not speculators.
Those who took out a raft of interest only way beyond their means to make a killing are a different case. That's just a bad business move and nothing to do with saving your home.

pickledtink

PasturesNew wrote: »

You mean the people upstairs?
No, but I am intimate with their pre-slumber habits thanks to the unforgiving nature of cheap laminate flooring

I've no idea why you couldn't say tart though.

Me neither.
And now I can:

Tart. Tart. Tart.

harryhound

I have a feeling the MSE software has been changed recently.
I'm getting a funny effect where it takes two goes to log on, possibly something to do with Firefox and not ticking the "remember me" box ?

I will try juvenile cat: !!!!!

Ah well the net nanny is still cocking-up some posts and leaving others.

pararct

dolcevita wrote: »

Totally off topic as regards the thread, but here are my current top 3 posh, educated birds (after my missus and neverdespairgirl, obviously).

In reverse order we have:

number 3

number 2

number 1

Emily certainly floats my boat.....:j

jamescredmond

dolcevita wrote: »

Totally off topic as regards the thread, but here are my current top 3 posh, educated birds (after my missus and neverdespairgirl, obviously).

In reverse order we have:

number 3

number 2

number 1

mrs. miladdo has just spotted this. as I write, she is standing over me with a hot clothes iron and would like to know why you have not included her.

Spartax

A new angle on negative equity avoidance perhaps:-

My daughter and her husband bought their first house in July 2007 with a 100% loan. They are concerned about negative equity as they may need to move with their jobs in a couple of years. Their proposed solution is to sell up now and repay the mortgage, go into rented accommodation for a couple of years then buy a house at a price which would be (if predictions are correct) much cheaper than now and hence a smaller mortgage.

Every instinct tells me that this is a bad idea and a high-risk strategy but I can't fault the logic. Can anyone help me argue against this?

beingjdc

Spartax wrote: »

A new angle on negative equity avoidance perhaps:-

My daughter and her husband bought their first house in July 2007 with a 100% loan. They are concerned about negative equity as they may need to move with their jobs in a couple of years. Their proposed solution is to sell up now and repay the mortgage, go into rented accommodation for a couple of years then buy a house at a price which would be (if predictions are correct) much cheaper than now and hence a smaller mortgage.

Every instinct tells me that this is a bad idea and a high-risk strategy but I can't fault the logic. Can anyone help me argue against this?

It's an excellent idea for most people right now - depends on the early repayment terms of their mortgage, and the part of the country they are in. In plenty of areas they're too late, unless they've overpaid lots or bought at a bargain rate.

If they want to guarantee themselves against prices failing to fall, they can take an opposite position in the derivatives market where a 20% fall over three years is now factored in.

dopester

Spartax wrote: »

A new angle on negative equity avoidance perhaps:-
My daughter and her husband bought their first house in July 2007 with a 100% loan.

Unless they have other savings to back themselves up with, or access to funds elsewhere to make up the shortfall, I'd be very very surprised if they were not already in negative equity - unless they live in Scotland maybe.