Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Insane

  1. 7 hours ago, Kosmin said:

    Why do you think liar loans stopped?

    Yes, prices were increasing whilst it was easy to borrow large multiples. But why did that stop? Why didn't banks carry on? Or why didn't they start again several years later?

    The credit crunch and house price falls weakened sentiment. It took HTB to change that. 

    What has that got to do with PE companies getting involved when the Government withdraws form HTB ? 

  2. 1 minute ago, Kosmin said:

    It's important that the money came from the government. The government literally said to lenders if a loan isn't commercially viable we will lend 20% of it, we will bear the risk before you do. It was bullish for the property market precisely because it was the government trying to prevent prices from falling and signaling this to the market. It wouldn't have been possible for the private sector to do this and they don't have an incentive to try to do so.

    Rubbish Rubbish and again Rubbish , prior to Liar loans being stopped the money came from the Banks. As with HTB the more money the more prices went up. Does not matter where it came from but no matter how many times your told this it does not sink in does it. 

    7 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    They need to do more than just not make losses. They need to earn returns high enough to compensate for risk. 

    They do. 

    7 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    That's correct. If you lend someone money over 25 years with own 20% of the house which is collateral, you don't know if you will make a gain or a loss until the end of the 25 years, unless the borrower repays early. Future repayments are uncertain and the future value of the properties are uncertain.

    Lol. The whole future is uncertain only Mistic Meg knows what is in store for us. 

    You can make a loss in the first year if the buyer defaults and the property is sold at a loss. You can see a gain (maybe only on paper) but banking is all about paper or screens by keeping an eye on your stake Banks do it all the time. 

    11 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    If they removed HTB could people afford to buy for £500k? If not, the government can continue spending more and more on HTB, Their stake increased from £50k to £100k, but only if they support that or other sales by spending £100k, or more. That clearly does not result in a gain. Every apparent gain relies on simultaneous higher investments.

    Wrong again , the Government have made a gain on the house that has doubled to £500k , if they take another £100,000 of Tax Payers money and invest it in another property they still have a gain on their first stake investing more money does not wipe that gain out as the new money is a separate investment and you have not shown any loss anywhere. Not saying there will never be losses ( I think there will be) but the way you describe the Government losing by property they have invested in rising is wrong. 

    16 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    Or they can end HTB and prices will fall.

    Could well happen I have never said it would not happen what I said was I heard a Rumour only a Rumour that PE companies were looking to get involved if and when the Government do stop HTB. 

    17 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    I don't know if it will be loss making for the government. 

    As I said I don't know how many times we don't know but up till now the Government have made not lost money on HTB. 

    18 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    You still haven't explained why the government would consider ending HTB if it makes money!

    You never asked

    But since you have why is it for me to explain why they would end HTB If it makes money ? The Government have not explained why they are ending it so I am unable to pass their reasons on to you. All I do know is the Current HTB scheme runs until 2023 so far there has been no announcement that it will be extended or a new scheme rolled out. 

    To sum up I will repeat I heard a Rumour that if and when the Government do pull the rug on HTB there are PE companies looking at taking it up afterwards , that is all that is it . Can you understand that ? 

  3. 35 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    This is incorrect. Prices increased because the government implemented HTB. Prices will probably fall as a result of the end of HTB.

    No it is correct. HTB allowed people to borrow more money hence prices went up , does not matter where the money came from the more money the more the prices increased. 

    37 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    If it were the case that banks could simply lend more without taking on excessive risk and thereby push up prices, why didn't banks just lend 95%, or 7xsalary or whatever, at any time between 2008 and 2013 (when the government introduced HTB)? 

    I did not say there was not more risk by lending more of course the risk increases, however if the banks had leant more instead of it coming from HTB they would not have lost the proof is in what has happened. The banks not wanting to take the risks and what has unfolded are two different things. 

    40 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    You say the government has been a winner, but you haven't given any evidence and you haven't explained why they would want to stop the scheme if it was making them so much money.

    Prices of new builds almost doubling in the last 7 to 8 years therefore the Government's % increases. Quite simple , as I said I have not got figures but I can see how much the new builds that were first bought with HTB sell for now. What figures do you have ? I already asked you this your answer was " I THINK "

    44 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    Even if we had all the relevant figures I don't think they would tell us if the scheme was going to be profit-making, as we don't know how much the houses are worth and how much they will be worth. This uncertainty is faced by mortgage lenders as well, but to a much more limited extent - they don't take big risks like HTB, so they have a much better idea of the risk and return of mortgage lending in the long term.

    So if we had all the figures we could not tell if there was a profit or a loss ? LOL. Do you lecture on economics ? 

    You do talk some S--t sometimes don't you. Banks still lend at 95% to people. 

    47 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    I have explained the government loses by rising prices and by falling prices. The interest payments it receives might outweigh these losses. I don't know. Maybe enough borrowers will default to put a dent in these returns.

    No you explained nothing about how the Government would lose if prices rise as when prices rise the Governments stake rises so it would be impossible to take a lose. What you explained was gogled goo. 

  4. 11 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    Another poster pointed out this wouldn't happen, so it's not just me.

    So that is two of you wow , another poster agreed with me so 2 all. 

    12 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    I know that the government introduced HTB because there were people who couldn't obtain mortgages because it wasn't commercially viable for banks to lend to them.

    But up till now it has been viable. If the Banks had lent 95% on all those HTB properties they would not have incurred any losses. But the big winner has been the Developers and the Government . I'm not saying that will always be the case. Expensive flats in London I think will show big loses , but any PE company getting involved don't have to lend with the same Criteria they might not lend as much or on certain kinds of property. 

    16 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    It's possible that the government earns a return on HTB,

    So no figures , I have not got any either but seeing the way new builds have gone up since HTB came in I cannot see where they have lost. 

    18 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    2) The government spends more on HTB. It earns a return on the earlier houses in which it has equity. But this is outweighed by the increased spending on HTB required. It only continues to gain on the earlier houses as long as  it continues to increase the amount of spending on HTB. It's like a ponzi scheme, but as well as finding new suckers, the government today relies on increased spending in the future (i.e. the government is its own sucker).

     The more the Government spends the more they get back up till now. Have never said it will always be the case. 

  5. Just now, Kosmin said:

    Misplaced Help to Buy threatens "substantial losses" - FTAdviser.com

    "The Help to Buy equity scheme could leave the government with a "substanital loss" ....

    MPs raised concerns about the scheme in a committee report"

    Do you think they would do this if it were making a lot of money?

    Has not happened yet it is a warning but it has not happened.

    Any figures on how much they have made with a rising market over the last 9 years ? 

  6. 3 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    We know that private equity companies won't deliberately try to lose money, so I think in this case we know that it won't happen.

    Yes we know they are there to make money not lose it , how do you know they will lose on it ? 

    " so I think in this case we know that it won't happen" It's not we it is you , so do you think ? or do you know ? 

    6 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    I think it's probably loss making. If prices fall, the government makes a loss on the houses with HTB loans. If prices rise, the government loses as it has to lend ever larger amounts to those who take out future HTB loans.

    So no figures you just think . HTB was 20% here in Essex when it started in 2012 some of the places bought on it have nearly doubled in value since so the Government lending 20% on a £250k house i.e. £50k now see that stake at £100k , do you think that is a lose ? 

    If prices rise the government do not lose by lending larger amounts !!! 🤣 Lol do you understand what a lose is ? 

  7. 9 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    I don't think it would make sense for any non-governmental organisation (especially not those seeking to make a profit) to operate a scheme like HTB. I also don't think it would make sense for a mortgage lender to lend in cases where another organisation (aside from the government) was lending money for the deposit.

    There are two reasons why HTB works for mortgage lenders (neither of which are present for profit making companies):

    1) The government is able to sustain extremely high losses from HTB and is probably willing to lose money on it over all.

    2) The government is able to implement policies to keep house prices high.


    If this did make sense, wouldn't it make more sense for one organisation to lend the whole amount?

    i.e. If a buyer has a small deposit and borrows 5xsalary from the bank and another 1 or 2xsalary using HTB, why wouldn't the bank offer to lend 6 or 7xsalary if the government removed HTB? (A bank won't lend more than 5xsalary, because they think the risk of default is too high. If they agreed with the assessment of another private lender that they could afford the repayments, wouldn't they just lend more? If they didn't agree, they wouldn't lend at all.)

    That was long winded 

    As I said it was just a rumour , but we never know what is going to happen do we.  

    Can you show me how much the Government has lost on HTB ? I don't have any figures but my guess is so far they have made , made quite a lot. 


  8. 16 minutes ago, robson1111 said:

    I think the real issue will be in 2023 when H2B stops.

    I was in Tottenham last week where new build flats are selling at 550k with H2B - 40%so in effect 330k

    At 550k there will be very few takers

    Help to Buy Should be called HELP THE DEVELOPER to Sell at a higher price. 

    All these people who have taken their maximum mortgage ability and then added another 40% on top to buy a shiny new build flat in London ( lots of it not in the best areas ) will be trying to sell in a second hand market where they need buyers who can pay the prices without the Government chipping in the 40% but there will be a huge number of sellers chasing a far smaller number of people who have the ability to raise the finances without Government help. 

  9. 1 hour ago, desiringonlychild said:

    How much does it cost?

    Well it is just over 100 foot long. When I moved in it was £1,000 just to get all the overgrown plants, trees and shrubs cleared. Then my part of the fences was £2,000. A new patio , path and a run of concrete at the bottom was £4,000. To shingle and lay a lawn was £2,500 , then about another £1,000 to buy a lawn mower a few pots and some plants. 

    On top of that the water bill went up by £15 a month to keep the new lawn green in this summer , I cut it myself but if I wanted to get someone in that would be £20+ each time. 

  10. 4 hours ago, desiringonlychild said:

    and its precisely because I am a flat owner/dweller that I am even on HPC. I don't want to spend the max on housing; if i was a housing nut, i would buy a 3 bed house in Hitchin for 400k, spend hundreds of pounds every month commuting, build a loft extension and  that obviously would increase much more than a tiny 2 bed flat in zone 3 london because space is at a premium. But outgoings would be higher every month due to commuting, higher council tax. I am more conservative and would rather be able to save £1k every month. 

    Yes we are all different and as well as wanting different things to other people we also want and need different things at different times in our lives. I lived in Zone 2 In a modern flat for years. I did not want a garden and even having to pay a service charge had an upside no worry about roofs , gutters and putting out the bins in time for the binmen. Now I have moved out to Essex and have the standard terrace house on Average Avenue. I don't miss paying the service charge but have to maintain the structure myself as for the Garden I enjoy it but no one ever told me how much work and cost it involves.  

  11. 3 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    I'm not the only reader of this thread. If you thought it would be wasted on readers of this thread, why did you post in the first place and why do you post so frequently (93 times!)?

    Really I did not know there were other readers I thought it was just you , thank you for telling me. 

    You have counted my posts on this thread LOL and your not obsessed LOL  how many times have you posted ? I won't be counting. Maybe spend less time answering me and do the research I told you about. Much better use of your time. 

  12. 59 minutes ago, winkie said:

    I didn't sign any contract, no verbal contract......thousands had the impression they would get a payment from the taxes they paid at a certain age, they didn't, so why should anyone expect they will get something at another age sometime in the future.....hope for the best, expect the worst.

    Whether you signed anything or not the contract was there , it was given verbally many times over the years still is. Who did not get paid the state pension from those who paid the correct NI ? People are getting their state pension as per the contract today , people will still get it in the future it is not something they are given it is their entitlement for paying in all those years. Why should people hope for the best and expect the worst ? 

  13. 57 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    Clips of discussions with Portillo and Neill. Examples include debating Mao's legacy, howlers like getting the cost of hiring police wrong. Things like that. I couldn't see how these could be interpreted as racist.

    Well you have started to look , carry on. It is all there. 

  14. 1 hour ago, winkie said:
    1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:


    Only wish it were true, but the reality is there is no entitlement......nothing is guaranteed until collected, that will be quite a few years into the future......who knows where we will be then

    There is an entitlement the contract is pay your NI for x amount of years and you receive your state pension. Whether you get it or not is another matter , but you are entitled under the current contract. 

  15. 3 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    That's why it was so frustrating that you mentioned it explicitly whilst still refusing to refer to any incidents of race baiting or racism.

    I mentioned it as it really is the pinnacle of the Labour Party , don't you agree ? 

    4 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    Choose a few of what? 


    5 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    I already searched. Now what?

    What did you find ? 


  16. 40 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    Then I pointed out your double standard!

    No. But if that is what you think that is ok, don't vote for me if I ever stand for election. 🤣

    You know there has been quite a bit on the internet re Claudia Webbe , not so much on the MSM considering the Gravity of the situation I would just like to share with you one little snippet I saw written on an internet forum I this morning.  "  The worrying thing is, she represents everything that is good about the Labour Party. "  I felt that that was so succulently put I had to share it with you. 🤣 Then they wonder why Labour have lost their Core Vote. 

    50 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    "There are so many examples; it would be impossible for me to pick some!"

    Just choose a few ever so simple. 

  17. 31 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

    You allege racism and race baiting but refuse to provide examples.

    Yet here you provide a specific example.

    That seems like a double standard.

    No you read so much wrong and create so much work for others. 

    I explained to the poster what a double standard was as he did not know. Yes I gave him an example of one.

    But with the race baiting there is so much to show it is best for the people wanting to see examples to pop on Google , you seem obsessed with examples but won't go and look where you have been told to on many occasions. 


  • 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.