• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Credit where it's due"

Collapse

  • darmstadt
    replied
    So the problems were caused by giving people too much credit and the banks, politicians, etc. believe that giving people more credit will fix it. Hmmm!

    Leave a comment:


  • bobhope
    replied
    Originally posted by Cyberman View Post
    My equity is around 300K, built over 25 years and if you wait a year or so you will be back in positive territory. House ownership is a no-brainer !!
    So home ownership (or any asset class?) is a a no-brainer no matter what the price of this asset ?

    Give me strength.

    Actually, I have some .com shares you may be interested in - I'll sell them to you for what I paid for them.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Cyberman View Post
    House ownership is a no-brainer !!
    You can say that again...

    Leave a comment:


  • Cyberman
    replied
    Originally posted by chicane View Post
    My equity is currently around minus 5K. I bought in 2005. Hopefully I'll be able to afford the 300k house in around 2109.


    My equity is around 300K, built over 25 years and if you wait a year or so you will be back in positive territory. House ownership is a no-brainer !!

    Leave a comment:


  • Cyberman
    replied
    Originally posted by chicane View Post
    My equity is currently around minus 5K. I bought in 2005. Hopefully I'll be able to afford the 300k house in around 2109.


    I was telling friends and colleagues not to buy in 2006/7 and rent instead as I could see prices falling, as interest rates were so high. Nobody would listen, but I bet they wish that they had.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by chicane View Post
    My equity is currently around minus 5K. I bought in 2005. Hopefully I'll be able to afford the 300k house in around 2109.

    If they print more money you might be able to afford to buy £300k house much sooner than you think. It just won't be the same £300k house as it is now.

    Leave a comment:


  • chicane
    replied
    Originally posted by Cyberman View Post
    People will continue to trade up as and when they want to and can afford it depending on their equity.
    My equity is currently around minus 5K. I bought in 2005. Hopefully I'll be able to afford the 300k house in around 2109.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cyberman
    replied
    Originally posted by chicane View Post
    Not sure whether to agree with you or not, but what does strike me about your predicted scenario is that most professional working couples will still only be in a financial position to buy houses in traditionally "working class" areas - around the 200K mark.

    I just don't understand who will be buying the houses in the traditionally "middle class" areas around the 300K mark.

    People don't just buy a 300K home as their first purchase. People will continue to trade up as and when they want to and can afford it depending on their equity. Thus strong demand will continue to be there and house prices will rise accordingly.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by SallyAnne View Post
    Do you believe it was Northern Rocks 125% mortgages which caused them to get into trouble AtW?
    Yes of course - if they had conservative 65-70% LTV ratio on their morgages they would have no problem selling whole bank: the buyers were put off primarily by the fact that NR was loaning to people who on one hand were likely to default and on another hand there was no room to withstand inevitable drop in house prices.

    It's not the shut off of money markets that killed them, it's the crock of a portfolio that resulted in their demise.

    Leave a comment:


  • AlfredJPruffock
    replied
    Originally posted by Moscow Mule View Post
    Fixed that for you
    Grey Slates remain - Grey Slates

    Fixed that for you

    Leave a comment:


  • SallyAnne
    replied
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Do you actually read atwat's posts?
    That was my first mistake!!

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by SallyAnne View Post
    Do you have any idea how difficult your posts are to read?!

    Do you believe it was Northern Rocks 125% mortgages which caused them to get into trouble AtW?
    Do you actually read atwat's posts?

    Best to do what the rest of us do and tell him he does know what he is talking about. 99% of the time you will be right. Of course he might start a thread entitled "how to start rubbish threads" upon which he is an expert.

    Leave a comment:


  • SallyAnne
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Oh shock horror, no suprised it was Northern Rock that ended up in deep tulip

    Like most people you fail to see the big picture and just look at your own personal circumstances, 125% morgages at high multiple wasn't an average 10 years ago, even though in some cases people got them (manager probably wanted bonus too badly), just like some people never got more than 50% offered because they were high risk, well, until "fool-proof" securitisation bulltulip came along some years ago.
    Do you have any idea how difficult your posts are to read?!

    Do you believe it was Northern Rocks 125% mortgages which caused them to get into trouble AtW?

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by SallyAnne View Post
    My first mortgage was 125% through the Northern Rock.

    This was about.....10 years ago.

    So, shock horror, you're talking tulipe.
    Oh shock horror, no suprised it was Northern Rock that ended up in deep tulip

    Like most people you fail to see the big picture and just look at your own personal circumstances, 125% morgages at high multiple wasn't an average 10 years ago, even though in some cases people got them (manager probably wanted bonus too badly), just like some people never got more than 50% offered because they were high risk, well, until "fool-proof" securitisation bulltulip came along some years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • SallyAnne
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Not for a long time. This 125%, 5-7 times salary tulip is a recent invention that not just trumped decades old lending criteria but also any common sense they ever had.
    My first mortgage was 125% through the Northern Rock.

    This was about.....10 years ago.

    So, shock horror, you're talking tulipe.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X