FACEBOOK Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Many would disagree, including these: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/banks-still-not-lending-to-small-firms-2195527.html My own bank charged me what I considered excessive charges when I went overdrawn in an account (by a few quid)which I did not have an overdraft facility, despite having plenty in another account for which I had a £3k overdraft limit. I didn't realise for months and it cost me hundreds! All businesses make errors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-clips Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 You think that I'd have to be a banker to make such a comment? Specifically it is my opinion that you are very probably a merchant banker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACEBOOK Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Specifically it is my opinion that you are very probably a merchant banker. Ok, I'm quite happy to answer your question, I'm not a merchant banker. So does that now change anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Specifically it is my opinion that you are very probably a merchant banker. One of these Phil? http://youtu.be/YUhb0XII93I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-clips Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 One of these Phil? http://youtu.be/YUhb0XII93I Seems about right. I still watch Monty Pythons on u tube from time to time. Five Yorkshiremen is my favorite, but that's inflation for you! I still do not understand the Phil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACEBOOK Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 One of these Phil? http://youtu.be/YUhb0XII93I That is funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 It's rather strange that a house close by mine was built for £275 in 1939, it has been allowed to go downhill but after the owner died, the house was sold for £85,500. houses cqn be demolished and better houses built in their place if the vendor has the freehold or the buyer can obtain it. Why do you think it’s strange that the land as increased in value over 70 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 I think he's still trying to make the point that houses increase in value as well as land, a point I think you already agreed anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 I think he's still trying to make the point that houses increase in value as well as land, a point I think you already agreed anyway. My understanding was that the house was demolished and that it was the land that had increased in value and not the house. If anything the house was a negative value because of the demolition costs, I do know the land I sold would have been worth more had it not got a house on it that needed demolishing. Over time the house became worthless whilst the land increased in value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 The value of a house without the land (or the land without a house) is irrelevant, if someone owns the freehold estate in a house and the land on which it stands. Anything's value is what someone else will pay for it. Similarly, loss in a house's value is irrelevant if it's one's only/main home and all mortgage payments are made on time unless the mortgagee (lender) M: a. becomes aware of the discrepancy; and b. demand that the mortgagor reduce the mortgage debt so that it does not exceed M's maximum loan-to-value ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.