Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Quicken

Members
  • Posts

    1,898
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Quicken

  1. 12 hours ago, Ah-so said:

    Obviously not literally retrospective, but when these people took out their mortgages originally they would have assumed that they would have been able to remortgage when their mortgage fix was up.

    MMR - rules that were brought in to protect consumers from not being able to afford repayments on the future if rates rise. By being stuck on these mortgages, they are worse off and peversely more likely to succumb to rate rises.

    For this group of borrowers the MMR rules are not having the intended effect. 

    It isn't retrospective in any sense is my point. It doesn't matter what the customer assumes. Just as with savings accounts with teaser rates that drop to zero, short term fixed rate mortgages have a teaser rate followed by SVR. They are priced accordingly.

    The assumption that you can just sign up to another fix, as good or better than your old deal, when your teaser rate runs out is just an assumption - and one that was suitably demolished in the Big Short.

    The FSA describes the MMR as: The reforms introduced under the Mortgage Market Review deliver a mortgage market that works better for consumers and is sustainable for all participants.

    It isn't just to protect consumers - it's designed to make the market sustainable - i.e. constraining risky lending and protecting the taxpayers.

  2. 54 minutes ago, spyguy said:

    Again, that sounds like a BoE / FCA pitch at reducing the age at which mortgages end.

    This is pitch to cap the end of motgage well before working life.

    Imagine MMRv3 which limits mortgage terms to 5 years before retirement and insists that 20% of salary goes into a pension.

     

    I like your thinking. Roll on MMRv2 first. As you suggested - less than 4 LTE and maximum term of 30 years or time to state pension (whichever is smaller).

  3. 2 hours ago, Ah-so said:

    I have some sympathy. Most (nearly all by definition) of these people took out mortgages before the MMR mortgages took effect, so are effectively being punished by de facto retrospective legislation. Also, they can get totally screwed by their lender who will know that they cannot leave and can use its SVR to take advantage of them.

    This is not retrospective legislation. They can continue on the mortgage they signed up for, but they want a new product so the new rules apply. Effectively, what this is lobbying for is giving better mortgage terms to existing, overstretched people than they give to first time buyers. Bad move. 

  4. On 04/01/2019 at 16:16, markyh said:

    You know full well, sell 50% of my crypto when it will clear my mortgage, currently about £280k but dropping £12k+ p/a. So say December 2021 about £244k outstanding , so 50% of pot would need to be £270k taking into account 2 lots of CGT allowance and the 20% CGT bill to net £244k.  So 100% pot needs to be around £540k , say $700k which roughly equates to $100k Bitcoin assuming Alts held rise to match Bitcoins investments. 

    Plus I would still have the BTC and ETH invested in my SIPP in 2018.  So somewhere around $100k BTC whenever it happens I will be selling up 50% of all crypto holdings.

    Lets say it takes 10 years for Bitcoin to make big gains , mortgage will be down to say £140k, so would need pot to be about $370k which would mean about $60k BTC, only a 20x increase from now in 10 years, even good normal investments can do that with luck!

    It is worth remembering that mining is subject to income tax:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-on-cryptoassets/cryptoassets-for-individuals

    Best of luck, Q

  5. 1 minute ago, thehowler said:

    Wasn't this after they told her they can't open or renegotiate the WA or provide any legal assurances on time limit for backstop etc.

    So...man goes into car showroom. "I want to buy a car."

    Dealer: "Sorry, I can't sell you a car. So tell me, what is it you want exactly?"

    I think it is clear that legally binding assurances on time limits and/or unilateral exit will not be forthcoming because those are red lines for Ireland. May needs to suck that up.

  6. Peston's take on what went wrong:

    Quote

    "Here is the measure of Theresa May’s failure last night - according to an observer of her request to EU leaders for 'assurances' that UK membership of the EU backstop would be finite and of short duration.

    "They were ready to help. They assumed a process of officials agreeing a text over coming week would start today, to give her the necessary words that would persuade Tory and DUP critics of her deal to ultimately support it.

    "But it was during the course of questioning her that they concluded such a process - such an extension of talks - would be a total waste of time. Why?

    "Well according to one observer of the conversation between May and the EU27 leaders, 'she could not say what would actually deliver a majority in parliament for her'.

    "Why on earth could and should they start talks in the absence of knowing what May actually wants?

     

  7. Quote

    The British government is seeking to place a duty on both sides to try and get out of the Irish backstop within 12 months of it coming into force, a proposal supported by Germany’s Angela Merkel and the Austrian chancellor, Sebastian Kurz.how

    But it was opposed by Ireland, France, Sweden, Spain and Belgium, who voiced doubts that May would be able to sell the technical concession to hostile MPs in Westminster.

    The summit communique published on Thursday night was less generous to May than earlier drafts. Irish objections had resulted in the removal of a phrase that the EU “stands ready to examine whether any further assurance can be provided” on the backstop. Wording that the backstop would not be “a desirable outcome” was also cut from the text.

    Leo Varadkar, the Irish taoiseach, said he was “very satisfied” with the statement 

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/14/eu-leaders-tell-may-to-find-brexit-consensus-among-mps

    There seems to be this idea going round the thread that it is Brussels, or 'the EU' driving the agenda. Here, we see specific states within the EU27 driving the agenda. If anyone expected Ireland to defend it's interests less energetically than say the DUP, why was that?

  8. 1 minute ago, thecrashingisles said:

    They could propose a coherent position that would win the support of a cross-party group of MPs.  Instead they do everything possible to avoid a clear position.

    Corbyn wants to get (and win) a GE, and avoid the in-out referendum that the party membership want. Compromise position - push for a GE, and only if that proves impossible then go for a referendum including the option to remain. So, the longer he waits to push for a GE, the less chance there is that there remains time to push for a new referendum. Obviously, a no confidence vote won't pass without the DUP and/or some tories, and it isn't clear any of them are ready to jump ship while May continues to stall over the backstop. So, both May and Corbyn are happy to keep stalling while the boat continues heading for the waterfall. Strong and stable.

  9. For those unaware, this is what is happening to the University Pension scheme (USS). Over 1/3 of remuneration soon going into the workplace pension. With NI, close to 1/2. It is getting expensive to employ people on that basis, and that is to provide a pension much less generous than the old final salary scheme around before 2011 (see below).

    match-article-graph.jpg?la=en&hash=62C88

     

    It all started going south after 2008. Reasonable summary on Wikipedia here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universities_Superannuation_Scheme

    2011: Final Salary Scheme closed to new members and replaced by Career Average Model (ladder pulled); retirement age linked to state retirement; RPI to CPI; move to balance of cost model

    2016: Final Salary Scheme closed to pre-2011 members; contributions raised; defined contiribution scheme introduced alongside career average defined benefit scheme

  10. Interesting snippets from the current debate in Parliament over the pulled vote:

    Quote

    BuzzFeed report saying EU officials were told the vote would be pulled 24 hours before cabinet minsters were told.

    Quote

    Labour’s Stephen Doughty says he has also been told EU officials were told first. And he says he has been told that the addendum that May is seeking was actually drafted weeks ago.

     

×
×
  • 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.