chem1st Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 And how many of the interest only mortgages also have a endowment or other savings plan which will completely pay off the sum loaned at the term of the mortgage? I am unable to answer this, I am not a lender organisation regulated by the FSA and even if I were I cannot afford the £8000 required to access the data. I'm sorry that I cannot answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 Or that banks are all lending irresponsibly to people who have no plans at all to pay them back? Northern rock and 125% self cert mortgages which did not even require proof of income? Self cert mortgages not outlawed till 2013! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I'm surprised that as many as 2/3 are repayment given the past couple of decades of financial sector insanity. This is not to take away from the OP which I think is trying to make the point that many of the other 1/3, when no vehicle for repaying the capital is in place, are little more than 25 year rental agreements. The strength of the point really rests on how many do not have any way to repay the capital, and how many have little or very risky provision for repaying tha capital. i.e.: - a poorly performing endowment - poor investments - risky investments - a belief in ever expanding house prices, maybe relying on a sale and downsize when the mortgage reaches term - misguided trust in their pension There are lots of hare-brained strategies people with I/O mortgages will be relying on. We know that there are lots of self-cert mortgages out there potentially with some element of fraud. How serious the problem is will probably take years to discover. Traditional repayment mortgages are the way for the vast majority of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Northern rock and 125% self cert mortgages which did not even require proof of income? Self cert mortgages not outlawed till 2013! I didn't dispute that SOME banks were lending irresponsibly- your comments about the number of interest only mortgages imply that ALL of the banks must have been lending irresponsibly. My mortgage was not a 125% mortgage, nor was it a self cert mortgage, it's not in arrears, I'm not going to have problems paying it off and I would imagine that everybody else that is in a similar boat to me would be thoroughly hacked off that the implication that you constantly draw with home owners being a boil on the backside of the 'average working person' is just way too close to offensive. I know you want to sneer at everybody who is lucky enough to own their own home, but I have no idea why you take endless potshots. It really does wear thin sometimes, so any chance you could find another thing to harp on about constantly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 I didn't dispute that SOME banks were lending irresponsibly- your comments about the number of interest only mortgages imply that ALL of the banks must have been lending irresponsibly. Prove me wrong, I have said that I am unable to access the information required to answer your question else I would. My mortgage was not a 125% mortgage, nor was it a self cert mortgage, it's not in arrears, I never said it were. I'm not going to have problems paying it off Nobody can be sure of the future. and I would imagine that everybody else that is in a similar boat to me would be thoroughly hacked off that the implication that you constantly draw with home owners being a boil on the backside of the 'average working person' is just way too close to offensive. I argue that land monopoly is bad for all of society and creates different classes of people and thus a hierarchical society of haves and have nots, I see the land, our planet as a collective resource vital to the survival of all of the human race. And I don't consider homeowners to be a boil upon the backside of the average working man. Landlords and large landowners (the landed gentry in particular, and buy to let speculators whom wish to live off of the backs of others) however... Technically speaking your not a homeowner anyhow, you have a mortgage. I know you want to sneer at everybody who is lucky enough to own their own home, I wouldn't call it luck. And sneering is hardly the correct word for pointing out the mechanisms which allow somebody to have an advantage over others (wrt the homeowner whom owns outright vs the immigrant or youth starting out without any state enforced privilege of some sort). but I have no idea why you take endless potshots. It really does wear thin sometimes, so any chance you could find another thing to harp on about constantly? An injustice exists, till it ceases to exist I shall speak out. And you know full well I try to start lots of jokey threads, but they often get deleted, so what is the point of me trying to inject humour into the forum like I did in days gone by? I half suspect it is you whom deletes them, and for this post opposing your take on things I probably risk a ban. If the world were a different place and a man could build his own house, grow some crops and raise a family without interference from the state do you really think I would waste my time posting on here? I can't even get an allotment. Anyhow, I divert the thread, so back to the OP, what do you think of the fact that 1 in 6 homes in Britain are effectively rented from the bank? It's not healthy for society is it? It's not for the communal good, it's a way of allowing some people to live without having to do anything productive and forcing others to work far harder than what they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I didn't dispute that SOME banks were lending irresponsibly- your comments about the number of interest only mortgages imply that ALL of the banks must have been lending irresponsibly. My mortgage was not a 125% mortgage, nor was it a self cert mortgage, it's not in arrears, I'm not going to have problems paying it off and I would imagine that everybody else that is in a similar boat to me would be thoroughly hacked off that the implication that you constantly draw with home owners being a boil on the backside of the 'average working person' is just way too close to offensive. I know you want to sneer at everybody who is lucky enough to own their own home, but I have no idea why you take endless potshots. It really does wear thin sometimes, so any chance you could find another thing to harp on about constantly? My financial position and housing situation is very similar to yours but being a mortgagee doesn't place me in some special moral place that is better than others. It means I was lucky to buy at a ok time, lucky to get good advice etc... I understand many of the gripes chemist has because I pretty much agree with all of them. People who cannot see how broken the housing market is are badly misinformed, perhaps even ignorant. The bottom line is that much of the house price boom has been driven by fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordonb Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Don't see the point of the OP. So if I could't afford to pay off my interest only mortgage the Building Society would re-possess it and I would have effectively rented it for the last 25 years but it would have been a lot cheaper than paying the market rent of the time. Equally I wouldn't borrow more than I could afford to cover with an alternative investment and I would try only to borrow from a mutual building society and therefore any "Profits" would belong to the members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 My financial position and housing situation is very similar to yours but being a mortgagee doesn't place me in some special moral place that is better than others. It means I was lucky to buy at a ok time, lucky to get good advice etc... I understand many of the gripes chemist has because I pretty much agree with all of them. People who cannot see how broken the housing market is are badly misinformed, perhaps even ignorant. The bottom line is that much of the house price boom has been driven by fraud. It may have been driven by fraud, but that it not an implication that either: a) all home owners/mortgagees obtained their mortgage fraudulently, or b) all financial institutions have committed fraud in order to lend money. I understand that there are things wrong with the property market but those things are not the fault of anybody who took out a mortgage based on sound personal finances. I have yet to hear a viable alternative to the current system though, so no matter how much we may say that there's something at fault, until there is an alternative no amount of complaining is going to make any difference, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 It may have been driven by fraud, but that it not an implication that either: a) all home owners/mortgagees obtained their mortgage fraudulently, or b) all financial institutions have committed fraud in order to lend money. I understand that there are things wrong with the property market but those things are not the fault of anybody who took out a mortgage based on sound personal finances. I have yet to hear a viable alternative to the current system though, so no matter how much we may say that there's something at fault, until there is an alternative no amount of complaining is going to make any difference, is it? Of course not every mortgagee is a fraudster and not every bank behaved badly. I don't think anybody in their right mind would argue otherwise. I've never seen or heard anybody argue that. But the market has become broken, distorted, riddled with fraud. And needs to be repaired. To suggest it can never be changed is wrong. It changed (badly) to get where it is now. It can change back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 The bottom line is that much of the house price boom has been driven by fraud. There always has been fraud, i really don't think that the boom was driven by fraud. If it was then you are accusing the majority of people who have bought a house in the last 10-15 years of being a crook, which patently isn't true. The boom was driven by cheap credit, lax lending conditions and a shortage of housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.