Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Jonnybegood

Question For The Bears

Recommended Posts

In response to the recent "Questions bulls never answer" posting I have one for the bears.

The bears keep going on about average prices will revert back to the age old 3.5X income mortgages so in todays money approx £88k.

With a 10% deposit are we all agreed that we are looking at £100k average UK house price.

Now what the bears never answer convincingly enough is why this is not applied to couples when I know for a fact even today it is applied in the majority of high street lenders.

With the average household income currently £38k this would allow couples or joint mortgage applications access to funds of £133k, with a 10% deposit this would mean a purchase price of approx £150k for an average property.

Some of the classics responses from the past, the women has children and loses her income, too much to lend to single household, always been the way, what if one of them falls ill or made redundant what if they divorce etc etc

None of these have any substance and in fact 3.5x single income has long gone, most high street lenders have their ways of working out affordability, it works well but was abused over the last 8-10 years so they will tighten up to levels they feel safe and as the illustration below shows lending to a couple if often the safer route.

So my question is, what is the difference between me and my partner who both earn £50k as deputy heads of local schools buying together with a mortgage of £250k = 2.5x joint income

or us going our separate ways and me borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy a house and her borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy another house up the road.

We both pay £876 per month for our separate properties @ 5% interest.

Plus

Both pay £100 per month energy

Both pay £100 per month council tax

Both pay £50 per month water

Both pay £20 per month phone

Both pay £15 per month tv license

Both pay £30 per month insurance

Both pay £200 per month Food

So out of our £3k per month take home pay each we pay out approx £1500 (50%)

or option 2 we buy together and put our incomes together = £6k take home pay pot

we pay

£1461 per month for our joint mortgage @ 5% interest on the £250k mortgage

£130 per month energy

£130 per month council tax

£60 per month water

£30 per month phone

£15 per month tv license

£35 per month insurance

£300 per month Food

Total per month = £2200 (30%)

From the lenders point of view surely option 2 is the safer bet, at least if one of the couple was to lose their job then the other could cover the mortgage payments, if in option 1 there would be no other income to fall back on and the mortgage would not get paid.

So why in todays society of equal this and that and where often household incomes from the 2 working adults are similar, why would lenders treat joint mortgages any differently from single applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to the recent "Questions bulls never answer" posting I have one for the bears.

The bears keep going on about average prices will revert back to the age old 3.5X income mortgages so in todays money approx £88k.

With a 10% deposit are we all agreed that we are looking at £100k average UK house price.

Now what the bears never answer convincingly enough is why this is not applied to couples when I know for a fact even today it is applied in the majority of high street lenders.

With the average household income currently £38k this would allow couples or joint mortgage applications access to funds of £133k, with a 10% deposit this would mean a purchase price of approx £150k for an average property.

Some of the classics responses from the past, the women has children and loses her income, too much to lend to single household, always been the way, what if one of them falls ill or made redundant what if they divorce etc etc

None of these have any substance and in fact 3.5x single income has long gone, most high street lenders have their ways of working out affordability, it works well but was abused over the last 8-10 years so they will tighten up to levels they feel safe and as the illustration below shows lending to a couple if often the safer route.

So my question is, what is the difference between me and my partner who both earn £50k as deputy heads of local schools buying together with a mortgage of £250k = 2.5x joint income

or us going our separate ways and me borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy a house and her borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy another house up the road.

We both pay £876 per month for our separate properties @ 5% interest.

Plus

Both pay £100 per month energy

Both pay £100 per month council tax

Both pay £50 per month water

Both pay £20 per month phone

Both pay £15 per month tv license

Both pay £30 per month insurance

Both pay £200 per month Food

So out of our £3k per month take home pay each we pay out approx £1500 (50%)

or option 2 we buy together and put our incomes together = £6k take home pay pot

we pay

£1461 per month for our joint mortgage @ 5% interest on the £250k mortgage

£130 per month energy

£130 per month council tax

£60 per month water

£30 per month phone

£15 per month tv license

£35 per month insurance

£300 per month Food

Total per month = £2200 (30%)

From the lenders point of view surely option 2 is the safer bet, at least if one of the couple was to lose their job then the other could cover the mortgage payments, if in option 1 there would be no other income to fall back on and the mortgage would not get paid.

So why in todays society of equal this and that and where often household incomes from the 2 working adults are similar, why would lenders treat joint mortgages any differently from single applications.

because, without children, the human race will perish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So why in todays society of equal this and that and where often household incomes from the 2 working adults are similar, why would lenders treat joint mortgages any differently from single applications.

They don't. In fact, as you point out, it is safer for them, and so I reckon they prefer it.

Bears just like to make up a load of shit when presented with facts that disagree with their world view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to the recent "Questions bulls never answer" posting I have one for the bears.

The bears keep going on about average prices will revert back to the age old 3.5X income mortgages so in todays money approx £88k.

With a 10% deposit are we all agreed that we are looking at £100k average UK house price.

Now what the bears never answer convincingly enough is why this is not applied to couples when I know for a fact even today it is applied in the majority of high street lenders...

the house price to wage ratio [as per halifax] only went above 3.5 in november 2001. it had been below 3.5 for almost a decade before. two income households did, believe it or not, exist in the late 90s and early 00s. the 3.5 * income [male, full-time] is not a theoretical rule [it's possible to theorise anything], it's an actual historical figure that was borne out until very recently [and the reason for the change has nothing to do with an increase in dual income households].

Edited by the flying pig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the house price to wage ratio [as per halifax] only went above 3.5 in november 2001. it had been below 3.5 for almost a decade before. two income households did, believe it or not, exist in the late 90s and early 00s. the 3.5 * income [male, full-time] is not a theoretical rule [it's possible to theorise anything], it's an actual historical figure that was borne out until very recently [and the reason for the change has nothing to do with an increase in dual income households].

Don't burst their bubble !! Two income households only began in 2005. FACT. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to the recent "Questions bulls never answer" posting I have one for the bears.

The bears keep going on about average prices will revert back to the age old 3.5X income mortgages so in todays money approx £88k.

With a 10% deposit are we all agreed that we are looking at £100k average UK house price.

Now what the bears never answer convincingly enough is why this is not applied to couples when I know for a fact even today it is applied in the majority of high street lenders.

With the average household income currently £38k this would allow couples or joint mortgage applications access to funds of £133k, with a 10% deposit this would mean a purchase price of approx £150k for an average property.

Some of the classics responses from the past, the women has children and loses her income, too much to lend to single household, always been the way, what if one of them falls ill or made redundant what if they divorce etc etc

None of these have any substance and in fact 3.5x single income has long gone, most high street lenders have their ways of working out affordability, it works well but was abused over the last 8-10 years so they will tighten up to levels they feel safe and as the illustration below shows lending to a couple if often the safer route.

So my question is, what is the difference between me and my partner who both earn £50k as deputy heads of local schools buying together with a mortgage of £250k = 2.5x joint income

or us going our separate ways and me borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy a house and her borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy another house up the road.

We both pay £876 per month for our separate properties @ 5% interest.

Plus

Both pay £100 per month energy

Both pay £100 per month council tax

Both pay £50 per month water

Both pay £20 per month phone

Both pay £15 per month tv license

Both pay £30 per month insurance

Both pay £200 per month Food

So out of our £3k per month take home pay each we pay out approx £1500 (50%)

or option 2 we buy together and put our incomes together = £6k take home pay pot

we pay

£1461 per month for our joint mortgage @ 5% interest on the £250k mortgage

£130 per month energy

£130 per month council tax

£60 per month water

£30 per month phone

£15 per month tv license

£35 per month insurance

£300 per month Food

Total per month = £2200 (30%)

From the lenders point of view surely option 2 is the safer bet, at least if one of the couple was to lose their job then the other could cover the mortgage payments, if in option 1 there would be no other income to fall back on and the mortgage would not get paid.

So why in todays society of equal this and that and where often household incomes from the 2 working adults are similar, why would lenders treat joint mortgages any differently from single applications.

Why were flats about 30k in 1997? Plenty of people had joint income then? There has been a massive overbuild of property since then. Without a focused brainwashing campaign sheeple will again realise you don`t have to pay a leg and an arm for houses? Why would you care about this, unless you bought into the bubble of course? We know Hamish did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
because, without children, the human race will perish.

The figure of 3.5 x income is purley to gauge the average house price then and now. Then being any point in the past including pre the last crash, during and after. Using the same formula, house prices at this very point in time are far too high. They are so high that at the height of the last boom houses were cheaper than they are today! As long as the same formula is applied to then and now, it works!

Hence the bears use this to point out today's prices are ridicoulsly over valued still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to the recent "Questions bulls never answer" posting I have one for the bears.

The bears keep going on about average prices will revert back to the age old 3.5X income mortgages so in todays money approx £88k.

With a 10% deposit are we all agreed that we are looking at £100k average UK house price.

Now what the bears never answer convincingly enough is why this is not applied to couples when I know for a fact even today it is applied in the majority of high street lenders.

With the average household income currently £38k this would allow couples or joint mortgage applications access to funds of £133k, with a 10% deposit this would mean a purchase price of approx £150k for an average property.

...snip...

So my question is, what is the difference between me and my partner who both earn £50k as deputy heads of local schools buying together with a mortgage of £250k = 2.5x joint income

or us going our separate ways and me borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy a house and her borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy another house up the road.

...snip..

You seem to be suggesting that 3 - 3.5 X single is sensible and 2.5 X joint is equally sensible. I remember this being roughly the norm when I took out my first mortgage (early nineties).

By your own figures, that would come to an average price of 105k for 2.5 X joint. Sounds reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without securitization where is your money going to come from for you to borrow?

True you may be a good bet, but will the banks give the same amount out to any borrower like they did before?

If not house prices can only deflate, unless of course house prices are sustained by extreme low turnover by those with money providing firesales can be avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
because, without children, the human race will perish.

Are you saying that no women should be allowed a mortgage, single or joint.

Or any type of finance for that matter, just in case she suddenly falls pregnant.

Maybe they should be charged a higher rate of interest to cover the risk involved.

No women should be allowed financing for a new business, you really are living in the dark ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to the recent "Questions bulls never answer" posting I have one for the bears.

A high-income couple like you (top 2% of earners, plus high job-security) doesn't quite represent an average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't burst their bubble !! Two income households only began in 2005. FACT. ;)

just for fun i looked at the stats on the ONS.

since Q4 2001, when the multiple was last below 3.5, a net extra 464,000 women have started working [the number is, of course, falling every month in line with employment generally], so that's 66,000 more per year.

even given the myriad of miserable ways in which the supply of new housing is restricted in this country we always add well, well, over another 100,000 pwoperdees every year. so even if all of those 66,000 new female workers per year were working full time and earning enough to buy a house, we've built more than enough for them to buy a new house each, probably enough for two each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to the recent "Questions bulls never answer" posting I have one for the bears.

The bears keep going on about average prices will revert back to the age old 3.5X income mortgages so in todays money approx £88k.

With a 10% deposit are we all agreed that we are looking at £100k average UK house price.

Now what the bears never answer convincingly enough is why this is not applied to couples when I know for a fact even today it is applied in the majority of high street lenders.

With the average household income currently £38k this would allow couples or joint mortgage applications access to funds of £133k, with a 10% deposit this would mean a purchase price of approx £150k for an average property.

Some of the classics responses from the past, the women has children and loses her income, too much to lend to single household, always been the way, what if one of them falls ill or made redundant what if they divorce etc etc

None of these have any substance and in fact 3.5x single income has long gone, most high street lenders have their ways of working out affordability, it works well but was abused over the last 8-10 years so they will tighten up to levels they feel safe and as the illustration below shows lending to a couple if often the safer route.

So my question is, what is the difference between me and my partner who both earn £50k as deputy heads of local schools buying together with a mortgage of £250k = 2.5x joint income

or us going our separate ways and me borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy a house and her borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy another house up the road.

We both pay £876 per month for our separate properties @ 5% interest.

Plus

Both pay £100 per month energy

Both pay £100 per month council tax

Both pay £50 per month water

Both pay £20 per month phone

Both pay £15 per month tv license

Both pay £30 per month insurance

Both pay £200 per month Food

So out of our £3k per month take home pay each we pay out approx £1500 (50%)

or option 2 we buy together and put our incomes together = £6k take home pay pot

we pay

£1461 per month for our joint mortgage @ 5% interest on the £250k mortgage

£130 per month energy

£130 per month council tax

£60 per month water

£30 per month phone

£15 per month tv license

£35 per month insurance

£300 per month Food

Total per month = £2200 (30%)

From the lenders point of view surely option 2 is the safer bet, at least if one of the couple was to lose their job then the other could cover the mortgage payments, if in option 1 there would be no other income to fall back on and the mortgage would not get paid.

So why in todays society of equal this and that and where often household incomes from the 2 working adults are similar, why would lenders treat joint mortgages any differently from single applications.

Historically, higher earners have always been able to borrow higher joint multiples because of the increased disposable income. Of course, for higher multiples, the banks always required bigger deposit and slighty higher rates, plus mortgage indemnity insurance.

Rerun the sums if you both earned average wage and it becomes obvious that you both need to work to keep the house and eat. This implies that, if every worker is assigned the same probability of losing their job come a recession, your household where both need to work are twice as likely to lose the house.

Edited by kilroy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying that no women should be allowed a mortgage, single or joint.

Or any type of finance for that matter, just in case she suddenly falls pregnant.

Maybe they should be charged a higher rate of interest to cover the risk involved.

you mean they're not already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to the recent "Questions bulls never answer" posting I have one for the bears.

The bears keep going on about average prices will revert back to the age old 3.5X income mortgages so in todays money approx £88k.

With a 10% deposit are we all agreed that we are looking at £100k average UK house price.

Now what the bears never answer convincingly enough is why this is not applied to couples when I know for a fact even today it is applied in the majority of high street lenders.

With the average household income currently £38k this would allow couples or joint mortgage applications access to funds of £133k, with a 10% deposit this would mean a purchase price of approx £150k for an average property.

Some of the classics responses from the past, the women has children and loses her income, too much to lend to single household, always been the way, what if one of them falls ill or made redundant what if they divorce etc etc

None of these have any substance and in fact 3.5x single income has long gone, most high street lenders have their ways of working out affordability, it works well but was abused over the last 8-10 years so they will tighten up to levels they feel safe and as the illustration below shows lending to a couple if often the safer route.

So my question is, what is the difference between me and my partner who both earn £50k as deputy heads of local schools buying together with a mortgage of £250k = 2.5x joint income

or us going our separate ways and me borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy a house and her borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy another house up the road.

We both pay £876 per month for our separate properties @ 5% interest.

Plus

Both pay £100 per month energy

Both pay £100 per month council tax

Both pay £50 per month water

Both pay £20 per month phone

Both pay £15 per month tv license

Both pay £30 per month insurance

Both pay £200 per month Food

So out of our £3k per month take home pay each we pay out approx £1500 (50%)

£130 per month energy

£130 per month council tax

£60 per month water

£30 per month phone

£15 per month tv license

£35 per month insurance

£300 per month Food

Total per month = £2200 (30%)

From the lenders point of view surely option 2 is the safer bet, at least if one of the couple was to lose their job then the other could cover the mortgage payments, if in option 1 there would be no other income to fall back on and the mortgage would not get paid.

So why in todays society of equal this and that and where often household incomes from the 2 working adults are similar, why would lenders treat joint mortgages any differently from single applications.

3x Fundementals you miss.

a) Anyone will lend you anything in a rising market (no lose) low risk, the same applies in reverse.

B) Mortgage rates (Although UK base rate unlikely to hit Icelandic rates 17.5% ) could easily jump to 10% with base rates back at the 6% level (To counter inflation/bond strike.and don't ignore the VAT rate cut on inflation figures!)

c) Taxation will have to rise and pay rates ARE falling(even for public servants) given levels of debt vs GDP (This is a given!)

with a high enough LTV you can counter these effects....but with former LTV's at 125% the leverage, your still looking at a very big pull back and many innocents are caught in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have clearly put a lot of thought into your question and it deserves an equally well thought out answer.

Unfortunately, tonight I have chosen to reply as a bear , but in the style of a bull.

HA HA LOSER!!!!!!!!

HOWS YOU BTL PORTFOLIO DOING NOW???????

TWWWAAAAAAAATTTT :lol::lol::lol:

HOUSES ONLY EVER GO DOWN - YOU ARE GOING TO BE POORER THAN ME FOR EVER AND EVER!!

LLLOOOSERS!!

MAIDSTONE 4 EVA

Edited by sbn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why were flats about 30k in 1997? Plenty of people had joint income then? There has been a massive overbuild of property since then. Without a focused brainwashing campaign sheeple will again realise you don`t have to pay a leg and an arm for houses? Why would you care about this, unless you bought into the bubble of course? We know Hamish did.

Maybe thats the reason why so many people own 2 or 3 homes, many of them established landlords who were able to snap up property at unrealistic low prices.

As far as massive overbuild just drill down to the types of property built over the last decade and tell me if its suitable for the numbers of families chasing housing and in places people actually want to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe thats the reason why so many people own 2 or 3 homes, many of them established landlords who were able to snap up property at unrealistic low prices.

As far as massive overbuild just drill down to the types of property built over the last decade and tell me if its suitable for the numbers of families chasing housing and in places people actually want to live.

monied people will always be able to afford 2 or 3 homes. In fact, there are probably more people who can afford 2-3 homes now than there were in 1997 due to increasing disparities between the rich and poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to the recent "Questions bulls never answer" posting I have one for the bears.

The bears keep going on about average prices will revert back to the age old 3.5X income mortgages so in todays money approx £88k.

With a 10% deposit are we all agreed that we are looking at £100k average UK house price.

Now what the bears never answer convincingly enough is why this is not applied to couples when I know for a fact even today it is applied in the majority of high street lenders.

With the average household income currently £38k this would allow couples or joint mortgage applications access to funds of £133k, with a 10% deposit this would mean a purchase price of approx £150k for an average property.

Some of the classics responses from the past, the women has children and loses her income, too much to lend to single household, always been the way, what if one of them falls ill or made redundant what if they divorce etc etc

None of these have any substance and in fact 3.5x single income has long gone, most high street lenders have their ways of working out affordability, it works well but was abused over the last 8-10 years so they will tighten up to levels they feel safe and as the illustration below shows lending to a couple if often the safer route.

So my question is, what is the difference between me and my partner who both earn £50k as deputy heads of local schools buying together with a mortgage of £250k = 2.5x joint income

or us going our separate ways and me borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy a house and her borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy another house up the road.

We both pay £876 per month for our separate properties @ 5% interest.

Plus

Both pay £100 per month energy

Both pay £100 per month council tax

Both pay £50 per month water

Both pay £20 per month phone

Both pay £15 per month tv license

Both pay £30 per month insurance

Both pay £200 per month Food

So out of our £3k per month take home pay each we pay out approx £1500 (50%)

or option 2 we buy together and put our incomes together = £6k take home pay pot

we pay

£1461 per month for our joint mortgage @ 5% interest on the £250k mortgage

£130 per month energy

£130 per month council tax

£60 per month water

£30 per month phone

£15 per month tv license

£35 per month insurance

£300 per month Food

Total per month = £2200 (30%)

From the lenders point of view surely option 2 is the safer bet, at least if one of the couple was to lose their job then the other could cover the mortgage payments, if in option 1 there would be no other income to fall back on and the mortgage would not get paid.

So why in todays society of equal this and that and where often household incomes from the 2 working adults are similar, why would lenders treat joint mortgages any differently from single applications.

I see no reason why house prices should be the maximum people can afford. In any case, the maximum people can afford is 3.5x income + their deposit, but nevertheless the long term average for house prices is 3.5x income without adding a deposit on. In other words, people are not borrowing the maximum possible.

One of the reasons the bulls give for why house prices should be higher now is the increase in single person households. It isn't possible to simultaneously believe that there are more single person households, and that house prices should be 7x income because there will be two earners in the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just for fun i looked at the stats on the ONS.

since Q4 2001, when the multiple was last below 3.5, a net extra 464,000 women have started working [the number is, of course, falling every month in line with employment generally], so that's 66,000 more per year.

even given the myriad of miserable ways in which the supply of new housing is restricted in this country we always add well, well, over another 100,000 pwoperdees every year. so even if all of those 66,000 new female workers per year were working full time and earning enough to buy a house, we've built more than enough for them to buy a new house each, probably enough for two each.

And if people had not been buying swathes of that property simply to flip - then we wouldnt be in this mess. Of course throwing debt at people did not help much either.

Where I live there is either plenty for sale, plenty for rent, or a mixture of both. All this with huge areas of land set aside just waiting to be built on. Yet prices here are insane.

The strange thing is half this place thinks that is perfectly reasonable. The brainwashing has been extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.. the 3.5 * income [male, full-time] is not a theoretical rule [it's possible to theorise anything], it's an actual historical figure ....

I think this is the key thing. The attempt to value residential real estate relies on many things. Affordability is affected (as the OP says) by increasing household income. The 3.5 times median male earnings is a rule of thumb and nothing more.

The transactional value of accommodation is reliant on both its affordability and people's perception of its value to them beyond its functional value as somewhere to sleep at night. Houses have recently risen to very high values because many people believed they were cash machines and if you bought one (or better multiples) you would get rich. This was true if you bought in the mid 90s and sold late 2007. The belief now amongst about half (my guess) of society is that if you buy a property now you will lose money. This is certainly the view of mainstream economists and analysts.

Most people do not buy and sell in order to speculate to make money. Most, in truth buy somewhere to sleep at night.

The so called "boom" driven by media hysteria and public greed has made houses into something they are not. In an attempt to cool down this process many people find comfort in returning to historical valuation techniques like a 3.5 times male median income figure - something that has been right (plus or minus a decent "wobble") over many years - since the war in fact.

Another good rule of thumb is a multiple of rental yield. By that measure UK prices are about correct. The issue being rents are falling and rental demand is also falling - thus the widely held view (my own) that houses' capital value is falling - despite the little (possibly imaginary) rise we have seen in recent weeks.

Based on historic rental levels, rents have further to fall. Over supply in the form of crappy flats, notably the new build rubbish, remains and rising unemployment, falling wages and dramatically increasing bankruptcy levels all again point to this process continuing rather than abating.

So, to answer the question, people use an old, tried and tested, rule of thumb because to be totally honest its a guessing game and there are too many variables to come up with a definitive answer. The widespread lunacy (for want of a better word) that houses are cash machines is still lingering in some pockets of UK society. The idea that you can get rich by buying a house and doing nothing else remains a daydream to many people - no doubt many of the bears on here who want to see the cycle start over with them buying in at the bottom.

I continue to think house prices will fall in the near term because the economic circumstances point in that direction. They point in that direction so strongly you would have to be as stupid as a dog to think otherwise. Nevertheless there are more than enough halfwitted morons that fit that description that have a job and access to a crazy loan at historically absurd (and artificially induced) interest rates that I may be proven wrong. This is a risk I can live with - the egg will wipe off my face, the laughter will die down, my money will be still in the bank.....

I hope this is informative and helpful to your request for data and a nice change from the "you're going to lose your shirt and I will p1ss myself" response that sadly is all too common.

Regards.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the face of it the affordability measures do seem a fairer way to assess mortgage applications as in theory it should take into account all the other debt the applicants have taken on. The 3.5x can be unfair if two similar applications are received when one applicant has no other debt and the other is already up to the eyeballs in it.

Having said that, the cynical side of me can't help but think the affordability measures were introduced primarily to sustain the bubble. The banks have been bitten, but, rightly or wrongly were bailed out. I doubt very much they'll make the same mistakes again...

until the next time of course :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have clearly put a lot of thought into your question and it deserves an equally well thought out answer.

Unfortunately, tonight I have chosen to reply as a bear , but in the style of a bull.

HA HA LOSER!!!!!!!!

Sorry to pick you up on your Bull vocabulary, but surely that should be .......

HA HA LOOSER!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.