Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

24gray24

Members
  • Posts

    2,685
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 24gray24

  1. Since when has it been illegal for a bank to sell bankrupt goods at auction? Of course the auctioneer takes a fee, don't tell me that's illegal. An auction is a reasonable measure, a market clearing price is a proper price, so what's the problem? Are you hoping a magic judge is going to say "properties can only be sold by charities at a price and for a fee considered reasonable by the bankrupt"...it isn't going to happen. The only thing that might happen, is that banks may decide not to sell properties with no equity in them once the bottom is reached, and instead rent them out. But as long as there's any chance of getting their money back in an auction, or the market is falling, they will be cutting their losses by selling quickly.
  2. You sold the house in 2007, cause you thought the price would fall. The next seller is trying to sell the house for the same amount (by asking greedy prices no one ever paid even in 2007). So if it's so affordable, why is he selling? Answer: he may lose his job? the prices are falling? a new house will be even more affordable in a few months? The affordable argument isn't going to make people buy a house, because while it's more affordable now, it will even more affordable in a few months and everyone knows it.
  3. I'd say: it's up to you chum, but I think prices are going to fall 60% and if they do you'll regret it all your life. You've got a safe job, why not wait and see? Anyway, that £70 a month...£840 a year. Anything to stop them raising it to £2000 a year? Who's running it, can you get rid of them easily? I feel sorry for people who buy flats because the service charges always end up being like paying rent and they can never change it. Is it freehold? Oh, so you have to give it back? So it's like paying rent then? Gee. In this market I'd want a freehold.
  4. It's much worse than that. The bank doesn't actually have to sell it right away for a start. They can just rent it out, and let the arrears keep on piling up (less rent). They can wait years before they sell it (say 10 years.). Then they have another 12 years from the date of SALE to chase you. So, if they repossess in 2009 and rent it for 10 years, they can come after you in 2030 for all the arrears. By that time you should have built up some more assets, so they take them. Unless you declare bankruptcy. Note, this is all IMO, IANAL etc.
  5. I read somewhere the gross amounts owed by the banks worldwide are 600 Trillion and the net amounts are guesstimated at 14 Trillion. The Fed has so far given away 1 Trillion (?) and GB far less. I can't believe there are even enough Monopoly sets in the country to make this work. But I'm no expert.
  6. My answer to the question: no, councils should not be able to slap fines on EAs who put up For Sale boards; as that will just conceal the true facts from the general public, and prolong the agony.
  7. I'm quite happy to have a sensible discussion. On one side, market sentiment (but it's wobbling) and politics. On the other, global situation, credit situation, liquidity situation, high street situation, jobs situation, banks situation, debt situation, manufacturing situation. What's the discussion to be about? Natural limits to positive thinking? The power of the press? The behaviour of crowds?
  8. I've got a much more evil thought: he knows he's going bust. But he's intending to take as many deposits as he can, which will not be returned when he goes bankrupt. Typical Boomer morality. (He'll take the deposits, but he won't build the houses. Just put the footings in, take as many deposits in as he can find suckers, then declare bankruptcy.)
  9. He knows a million properties are going to change hands shortly, and wants his website to be the one everyone uses. See the disclaimer at the bottom.
  10. I'm don't believe tenants have no comeback against repossession; delay is a comeback. Even the banks have to go to Court to get the tenants out; since the courts can easily arrange this to take 2 months, the tenant won't be out of pocket. They just stop paying rent, and by the time 2 months have gone by, they've got back their lost deposit.
  11. So who's pumping the credit in to buy, the Fed? It's just a purchase of shares at inflated prices by the Fed? (and GM, JP Morgan and Citibank shares at that).
  12. what on earth are those giant spikes on the DOW? Straight up and straight back time, several times...?
  13. IMO this is realpolitik. There may be a human rights legal problem: effectively confiscating their deposits by having only 14 days' notice may be thrown out by the courts.
  14. The claim that 6 weeks is normal is almost a lie. The truth is it was always one month's deposit in 1980, one month in 1990, one month in 2000. But in the last 18 months landlords are demanding 6 weeks because they're greedy. So now they're trying to pass it off as normal. The reality is that a lot of landlords are going to get repossessed and the landlord is going to steal the deposit, hence trying to push up the deposits. The truth is an honest landlord would much rather have a nice tenant in and take one month's deposit, than a bad tenant and 6 weeks deposit. And a dishonest landlord would much rather have 6 weeks deposit, because he has no intention of paying it back. If I were in your shoes, and they are saying they don't want to take any risk so they want 6 weeks, I'd reply that I don't want to take any risk on the landlord getting repossessed either, so if I have to risk 6 weeks deposit with a landlord who may go bust, then I want a personal guarantee from the landlord to refund the deposit at the end of the term, less damages over and above fair wear and tear; and I'd produce the personal guarantee for him to sign.
  15. Your daughter wants to leave and is looking for an excuse. These are not good excuses. She's made a deal and should stick to it. She should not make trouble for the landlord by doing return to sender or anything else. Just don't pay the last month's rent (because dishonest landlords often try to keep the deposit). honour your agreements! Sorry.
  16. Some real beauts on here. Those houses in Cumbernauld, I can't imagine what I'd be prepared to pay for it in reality: £1000? Even the thought of living in such an environment is depressing. £200. Maybe £200. Then let it out for nothing at all, just pay the bills. That seems about fair.
  17. IMO that is very bad advice. If the banks repossess, they don't have to sell them for 10 years, just rent them out while the amount owed increases. Then, after they do SELL them, they have 12 years to come and get all the amount owed back; 22 years should give him enough time to build up some assets, which the banks will in 22 years take off him. Your friend is hanging on for a little bit more: and a hanging is exactly what he's going to get. If he's your friend, don't mince words. Congratulations to Ethel. When the estate agent does phone back, tell them you've decided to knock another 10% off, given the market confidence is now even worse than before.
  18. When will BTLers panic sell? They're watching their properties sink in value, while their profits have currently gone up. The sensible ones will be capitulating now. The less sensible ones, are waiting to see what happens. My guess: directly the interest rates start rising again, the herd will bolt. All at once. One million of them.
  19. If the poor all walked out, would the employers be able or willing to do all the work themselves? No. It's a big lie. Who's doing who a favour really? The owner paying as little as possible for a bucketful of work, or the worker doing the work for a pitiful rate? So the whole system relies on paying the poor just enough so they don't walk out. We've reached an interesting point in this country, where the employers have short circuited the supply/demand problem by bringing in immigrants as cheap foreign labour rather than pay higher wages. But the natives are still reluctant to work at the new cheap foreign labour rate. Immigration was a deliberate breach of the social contract as well as the law of supply and demand, and amounted to a policy of driving down wages for the benefit of employers. When supply and demand said wages should go up, in the boom, employers refused to do it, they imported cheap foreign labour instead. Now the economy has collapsed, the employers see their chance to scrap the minimum wage/benefits and force the expanded pool of immigrants/natives to work for peanuts ( a rate which the employers lowered to peanuts through immigration). Their fear is they may fight, but not each other...so the employers are still mulling over their chances, and trying to dress up paying peanuts as a law of supply and demand, which has now magically become an iron law, rather than an elastic concept fiddled with at will..
  20. I think it's much more simple than that: the first people put their money in and got it back at 12% pa as dividends. Later people put their money in and also got dividends. Since the money was disappearing in dividends, without even anyone asking for their capital back, he needed more and more new people in. No doubt he tried to invest, but it didn't beat his 12% rate, so he got shorter and shorter. Once people started asking for their capital back, it's over. So, no doubt he spent considerable time making sure no one asked for capital back, as well getting more people in. If anyone was in on it with him, then they will be the first investors, who also got their capital back just before the end. There's must be some suspicion he sent some to Switzerland at some point and it's not on the books.
  21. It must be easier for large stockholders to sell significant chunks of shares undetected when the market is going up? Pump and dump?
  22. Obama was all in favour of looting the Treasury to pay all his friends in the banks. While he talks, the looting is going on behind him. He's there to talk over it, not stop it.
  23. It's funny to watch how when employers start arguing in favour of scrapping the minimum wage, they always claim to be the last of the big hearted arthurs themselves, and doing everyone a favour. You only have to point out that every argument they make is also an argument in favour of child labour, to see where their morality really stands. Yeah, people who employ child labour are doing everyone a favour, getting them off state benefits, wouldn't be worth doing at all if had to pay a proper wage etc etc. Last of the big hearted arthurs taking them on in fact. If employers can't see what's wrong with scrapping minimum wage laws, then they can't see what's wrong with child labour either. Simple.
  24. No, the boomers really are hypocrites. It's not an illusion. They got a mortgage from their parents' generation, then inflated it away in the 1970's so they didn't have to pay more than a fraction of it back. So now they are sitting in huge houses, mortgage free and telling the younger generation, who have nothing except debts, that they've got it soft because they've got an ipod. And, what's more, they are desperate to stop any inflation now (unlike before), because now it's them that'll get cheated. They just invent a new morality to grab everything at every stage. Before inflation, now no inflation. Before the old are a waste of space, now the old are to be venerated. Before, we'll contribute tuppence halfpenny to the old age pension, now, pay huge amounts for your own pension and pay for ours as well. If the younger generation were like the boomers, they'd just inflate all their parents' assets away to nothing in 10 years flat, and make fun of the old while they did it. Cause that's what boomers actually did in the 60's and 70's.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.