Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RobK

  • Rank
  1. Doesn't GDP exclude any government spending on social security etc? Has government spending in this graph been adjusted to account for that?
  2. This helps you appreciate the full horror of it: My link (hopefully the link will work). The gap doesn't even look wide enough for a bed...
  3. Yeah maybe. Which do I believe more - that banks would be stupid enough to lend 866% LTV, or that a lawyer is twisting the numbers. Hmmm...
  4. Some nice number mangling by Mr Baillie. I could be wrong, but this sounds like he is comparing what would be a reasonable LTV (80%) with the combined LTV of a series of mortgages, some of which were presumably repaid as the houses were sold back and forth (and the price uplifts skimmed off). So, according to this logic, if I own a house with 80% LTV mortage, and sell it to somebody else with an 80% mortgage, this is equivalent to a 160% mortgage.
  5. Clueless. It stuns me how many economists don't connect bond purchases by the BoE and inflation. Growth now seems to be dependent on money creation, a pretty dangerous addiction. Will we feed our addiction with further bond purchases (which presumably will have to increase in scope to create further "growth") and inflation? Everything says yes, I think.
  6. Flat I bought for £175,000 is now worth less than £100,000 Much to enjoy in this article. Have fun.
  7. Page 417 of the 2007 Annual Report - they were not allowed to record a sale, but can do when the bridging loan is repaid. If they repossess I would imagine their claim would only be £810m.
  8. To be fair to her, I don't think any of us would fancy attempting to justify this almighty mess on live tv.
  9. But those that were highly geared knew that they were taking a risky tranche and hence the high returns, didn't they? Or maybe not. Why did (or indeed still does) the BTL market think that such high returns were a one way bet? Not my analogy, but picking pennies in front of a steamroller springs to mind.
  10. I have no idea if the facts in this are true, and can't be bothered to look, but the idea that A&L will have to make £4bln to pay back the loan is complete and utter garbage - sorry.
  11. Agreed - the specific risk of outlier market pricing events caused by a lack of liquidity in the underlying assets has (probably) been addressed. I wonder what the unknown unknown in the BoE's scheme will turn out to be?
  12. And what about an dis-orderly unwind in prices? The "market" cannot price in unexpected events, as shareholders in NR and Bear Stearns discovered at their cost. My point was that the taxpayer is taking some risk. I have read your post carefully, but I don't think you are dis-agreeing with this? I love the phrase "highly-predicted" by the way - you are not a risk analyst, are you?
  13. Spot on. The BoE and the Treasury have probably managed to convince each other by reading the agreement(s) that there is no risk to the taxpayer. But politically could you ever make a margin call on a big bank that would make them insolvent? A slide aside - not that I expect they will get much sympathy on here(!), but you would be a bit annoyed if you were an NR shareholder, wouldn't you? NR just had the misfortune to be first...
  14. It would be interesting to see the average number of people working per household as a function of time on that graph, if you can find it!
  15. You don't think he/she may have fallen for the stupid idea that a house is something more than an investment, do you?
  • 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.