Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.
fixed mortgages should banks gain from their sub-prime fiasco
153 replies
8.2K views
This discussion has been closed.
Quick links
Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support
Replies
These RMBS were AAA rated by S&P and Moody's.
IMHO had that continued, we would never have had a credit crunch.
What happened is US lenders had so much money washing around, they started to chase more profitable and at the same time more risky business. They securitised sub-prime stuff, but instead of packaging all the sub-prime stuff together, it was mixed with prime and near-prime, so the buyers of the security didn't know what made up their investment.
Hence, when problems started to arise with mortgage defaults, none of them new the extent of the potential damage.
Alongside that, you had the likes of AIG and MBNA selling credit default swaps, insurance which should have been backed by collateral, being allowed to do so simply on their AAA ratings.
Eventually, the whole house of cards came tumbling down. The weekend of Lehmans demise 14/9/08, we were about I< >I away from a barter economy when HBoS was very close to being unable to open for business on the Monday morning.
It could have been a lot worse.
I totally agree with the FOS on 1st case as the events had already happened and its his decision not the banks.
I totally agree with the FOS on 2nd case for the same reason.
I would need more information on the 3rd case as to when in 2007 he took out the mortgage. I am not sure whether the Libor fixing has affected mortgages either and would need more information.
Many thanks for the links and proof that the FOS are looking into similar issues to mine.
One day as with other issues more facts will come to light
Thank you for you extremely accurate summary of the situation as it was.
These are precisely the circumstances I have been trying to express.
Who outside the Financial Industry could have predicted any of that.
You're never going to prove whether the banks did or did not know things were going to go tits up. I would not waste your time on such a complaint.
Thanks for reply.
We had come to the end of a deal with Nationwide and were moving property from a house we had just extended.
We were getting a bigger property but were downsizing our mortgage as we had done up a house in a lovely rural spot.
We were not advised we looked around all comparison and finance section compares and came to the conclusion this was by far the best deal for what we were looking to do and we paid a fee for the deal.
We still maintain this was a good deal under the circumstances we were aware existed. I still fail to see why people think this odd.
I have no complaints on the staff we dealt with in Barclays whatsoever.
If there was any underhand business (and I haven't stated anywhere I think there was) it would be higher up the chain.
It is about principal as to why I make the complaint. Everyone's circumstances are different.
I have read every post in this thread and I still fail to see your point.
A total lack of understanding of how mortgages are financed. Along with a linking of totally unrelated issues.
I would comment further but I'm beginning to feel like a broken record.
The common theme these days is the lack of personal responsibility for peoples own decisions.
― Daniel Crosby
I was locked into a mortgage on a higher rate (i think it was around 5%) and worked out it was cheaper topay the 'lock in fee' .. as on my new rate - the fees would be covered if the rate remained low for 6 months.. that was 2 and 1/2 years ago!
You can't blame a bank = for you choosing a product and stiking with it for 10 years!
I am totally capable of working out whether it would be cheaper or not at 6% fees it is not.
That only tells me more of you than
me