Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

captainb

Members
  • Posts

    3,748
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by captainb

  1. You are right there are. But theres no directors liability on this loan which makes the fraud claim the only route. Quite staggering for a loan. For that to occur: The bank as the creditor has to bother to chase - they wont given they have no skin in the game. It will be onto HMRC pile as a stack of 1000's claimed against in full for non-payment. HMRC will then have to go back to bank to get the records to then analyse and compare to filed accounts etc. They will then have to prove in a high court, after taking the step to prosecute the directors, that they made a fraudulent declaration, benefited from that and that the loan statement provided was secure enough in law to be a fraud case. Rather than the director claimed the loan for their business which didn't work. For self employed god knows how you prove you didn't spend it on food/cars rather than your business. One would expect that thousands of people are guessing that the chances of the above process being completed by HMRC are minimal at best.
  2. Well done you have worked out mistake on the form is the excuse they will all use but its nonsense. No not doing any of this. But well aware its going on in huge numbers. Ques around local branches in whitechapel were around the block on the morning this was announced. Makes me sick as well.
  3. "Business lending so no consumer protection. " Yes they can come after your shell company. Which you have paid a dividend out of or spent the cash. No claim on personal assets of the directors. No claim on housing or vehicles if self employed. No rational bank would ever lend on these terms. Its nonsensical and only happened because of 100% taxpayer guarantee meant it was smarties not a loan. I wish i shared your confidence in HMRC pursuing these - its a difficult one to prove in the high court that they did wrong, they are understaffed and the amounts are not huge. I am not holding my breath.
  4. Fraud or a mistake on a form? you self certified, you thought your turnover was 100k.. but didn't really understand what the means. The idea that HMRC will peruse all these people is farcical. They do not have the staff, systems or controls to do so, not being a retail bank. The total madness was providing 100% taxpayer cover. The Lender must have some skin in the game otherwise it is not a loan but a gift. Treasury knew this but under tabloid pressure of how long credit checks were taking on actual loans were brushed aside.
  5. Just to add 43% of those businesses who got one of those loans do not intend to pay them back and 27% do not think they will even be chased. Partner at business advice firm Flint Global Giles Wilkes warned bankers will be hesitant to pursue businesses who default on payments. He said: "If the BBRS survey is anything to go by, a great number of its recipients do not expect or even intend to pay back, and given the banking sector has little skin in the game, we might not expect the bankers to be knocking on their doors asking for money back. "If the government ends up being the creditor, I am doubtful that it will want to turn into the demanding bailiff to hundreds of thousands of hard-pressed entrepreneurs. We won't know for a few years, but I would be surprised if the great bulk of these loans are repaid in full." https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11683353/more-than-40-percent-businesses-wont-repay-loans/
  6. banks have been publishing and HMRC boasting about the timeframe. Applications opened at 8am, first cash was 10am. so rather unlucky to wait the full 48hours from application.
  7. The key difference here is that it is 100% backed rather than 80% backed by the taxpayer. At 80% the lender (bank) had some skin in the game to bother to check an validate the applicant business model and what the funds would be used for. At 100% they just do not care. Checking costs money. Adding the taxpayer claim pile does not. Given the government announcements proclaiming how quickly this cash has got out i would suggest the banks were actively encouraged not to do any checks.
  8. Maybe... in a lot of ways doesn't make any difference to the recoverbility of the 'loan' Security - Lenders are not permitted to take personal guarantees or take recovery action over a borrower’s personal assets (such as their main home or personal vehicle).
  9. You dont need to prove anything its a self certify form without any checks. Cash within 48 hours.
  10. Trading since march - a lot of people have companies not doing a lot as shells and self employed wont have filed anything yet if they started in march. Furthermore there are no checks. HSBC paid out to 14,000 new business account applicants in the first morning, average £37k. Thats a lot of >100k turnover businesses who have been operating without a company bank account....
  11. Have a company, get a company bank account, accidentally put turnover of 200k on the form, get 50k paid, pay a dividend of 50k, close the company. Thats the current scam. There is no claim on personal assets of the directors and the bank is 100% covered by the mug sorry taxpayer. So any investigation would come from HMRC who while they have the powers would need to goto the high court (as over £5k) to lift the corporate shield and even then as the creditor is offically the bank rather than them its not 100% certain you would get there.. all assuming HMRC can be bothered in the first place to go through that.
  12. That was the... no benefits if you have £16k+ in savings whatsoever.. but we are increasing housing benefit by another 10%.. so £1,200 pcm for a two bed flat in east London for everyone else. That was the official memo.
  13. Logically why? He can get the mortgage holiday now but might not be able to in 3 months time. He has income now but might not have any in 3 months time. He saves his cash now, to spend it on the mortgage/liabilities when hes looking for another job? Just cashflow management rather than crazy.
  14. Anyone can get it even BTL. Same with the £50k bounce back loans. Checks and policy take time. This is all just rush out the door as quickly as possible. Thoughts ref impact come later if at all
  15. Agree with the vast majority of that. One thing i would say is that we are all alive once. In the context of house prices, being "right" on the final crash on 'floor 1' when you are 55 having been wrong the other 99 times is not great, particularly if despite the falls they do not hit the level you could have bought at all those years ago (once paying off the debt over the period is taken into account in particular). I have no doubt all this free cash being dumped globally will have a final reckoning. I just would not want to be one A predicting the timing or B the overall impact. A and B are of course linked, i cant help but think on their 5 year timeframes printing more cash is always the least worse option.
  16. Haha - TBH full disclosure, i would personally love a 40/45% crash. I just can see policy taking over and driving them up if it ever gets to 10/20% down. Where the music takes us after that god knows!
  17. Sorry just to finish above "it (being leveraged asset) is what you are recommending with investing in miners - which i totally agree with. As long as they are production not speculative.
  18. Depends - i am not saying you are wrong, and there is a sweet spot where you are right. But.. in other times with large scale inflation, in real terms prices fell but nominal terms they rose strongly. Having a leveraged asset is not a bad idea in such an enivroment. I
  19. No my point being if you said in 2005 bond rates would go negative you would be laughed at. Saying they cant go more negative now, looks silly, but in 10 years time? The credit risk is insane. You are correct they are lending against an asset. However in an inflationary environment its always been better to lend against that than hold cash. I agree btw we could see a real terms rebalance of asset prices through inflation. I still think that through that process nominal asset prices will increase significantly. Which means waiting holding cash is a very silly idea.
  20. Brave to say bond yields have bottomed out for years. Who could have seen them going negative? As for rates, mortgage rates are sub 2% even on five year fixes with relatively high LTV. That is indicative of the banks having balance sheets full of cash to offload through QE. Yes its meant to encourage lending to small businesses, you can lend cash but not a bond, but as we all saw post 2008 a lot has ended up in cheap mortgages. To assume it wont happen again would assume some sort of control on mortgage lending which the BOE seems keen to encourage at the moment.
  21. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52767058 Holiday being extended another 3 months. So i wouldn't expect any distressed sellers this year. As you can not pay your mortgage from aptil to sept
  22. Ever tried to actually buy something with bitcoin? Remember how difficult that is. Then think about all your less tech savvy colleagues in the office doing the same thing. As a speculative 'asset' it arguably works as a currency miles away
  23. Agreed but as there are no checks being carried out anyone that tries will. You need to provide no evidence and as its turnover to year ended 31.12.19 vast majority will not have public accounts for this yet.
  24. Not quite true. It needs you to put 200,000 in a box on a form to get the cash. Rather different than actually having to have had the turnover. Giving out cash without checks is madness and its only come about due to tabloid press pressure. The banks wouldn't touch it without a 100% guarantee they would get all their money back in defaults.
  25. Yes - HMRC can - but seldom do. Someone getting £50k out, declaring a dividend to themselves. Then folding. While totally against what the scheme was nominally designed to do, i would think has a very good chance of getting away with it - if HMRC enforcement is anything to go by. Bank has no incentive whatsoever to investigate as it is 100% taxpayer back. HMRC its £50k which for them, even if they go through the court process and disclosure etc. is not a big target for their rather understaffed teams.
×
×
  • 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.