Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
gruffydd

Sold Out... Sub-prime Britain.

Recommended Posts

the more people that loose the right to own a huge debt the better.

the idea that these shrewed property investors are so retarded that they cannot react to the prospect of being evicted and made homeless is unbelievable. The moment you suspect something you reacte and you look and make phone calls. I get the feeling there are plenty of people that would help you pay rent to them. However, the media paints these onetime shrewed property investors as gimps that just stand asnd stare as they are made homeless and wonder the streets crying like children because the just dont know what to do. Nessessity is the mother of invention unless you expect ans demand a free ride.

aaarrrrr didums, did someone take the crown of home owner away and force you to wear the soiled underpants of renting? arrr, shame shame, dont dry now and sulk and take your ball home, remember, you dont have a home now!!! Its mine!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But but but, I didn't think Britain had sub-prime lending ;)

I sometimes wonder whether the whole home owning thing was more to do with enabling pensioners to remortgage and pay for their own retirement and healthcare than anything else.

Mind you, if we didnae have banks, I guess houses would fall back to minimal prices that you could afford after 2-3 years, or less, of saving anyhow.

Edited by gruffydd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Local authority housing officers accuse sub-prime mortgage lenders of creating a homelessness timebomb by targeting council tenants and encouraging them to exercise the right to buy with loans often far in excess of what they can afford. They quickly fall into arrears and are threatened with repossession. But if the worst happens and they are evicted, they find there is no safety net.

They decided to sell their previous safety net, why should there be another one provided?

Having said that, one of the cases in an early "Repossession" programme had exactly that scenario, iirc -- a family who bought their council house, MEWed it away, and went straight back into council accommodation. I believe they had a kid which probably helped their case.

Mind you, if we didnae have banks, I guess houses would fall back to minimal prices that you could afford after 2-3 years, or less, of saving anyhow.

IMO there'd be plenty of takers at higher prices, and the evidence shows that most people can't save 2-3 month's salary let alone 2-3 years (more likely they are in hock for 2-3 years+). So I reckon we'd see lower prices but also more landlords/rentals, with the linkage between price and yield restored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But but but, I didn't think Britain had sub-prime lending ;)

I sometimes wonder whether the whole home owning thing was more to do with enabling pensioners to remortgage and pay for their own retirement and healthcare than anything else.

Mind you, if we didnae have banks, I guess houses would fall back to minimal prices that you could afford after 2-3 years, or less, of saving anyhow.

Originally it was done to ensure new home owners would vote Tory. Later on it was discovered to be a nice way to pay for retirement and healthcare.

Edited by interestrateripoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally it was done to ensure new home owners would vote Tory. Later on it was discovered to be a nice way to pay for retirement and healthcare.

Yup. Such a scam :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://thereadyfamily.com/housing/Archive/Tenure.htm

the “Right to Buy†would include a real motivate for electoral gain by distributing the inducement of large discounts on council house sales. Indeed, Mrs. Thatcher made such a claim in Commons debate (1979)

“the Right-to-Buy policy alone is sufficient to persuade thousands of people to vote Conservative for the first timeâ€

And ultimately it helped to create the mess we are in now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Policy and the British voter: Council housing, social change, and party preference in the 1980s

Abstract

The 1980s saw a dramatic effort on the part of the Thatcher government in Britain to create a new Conservative electorate. Several policies, including Right to Buy—the sale of council housing to residents—were aimed at giving workers and swing voters a material stake in an anti-socialist capitalist system and therefore a reason to support the Conservative Party. This analysis finds the council house sales policy was a success, even when controlling for other changes in Britain's socio-economic structure during the period. The aggregate-level electoral impact of the sales program is larger than that found using survey data, and was enough to ensure the Conservative victory in 1992.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading betweeen the hopeless news worker lines of drivel, it looks like the people "intentionally homeless" are those who have MEW'd excessively rather than sub prime residential mortgage lending in the first place.

The first example quoted of the family from Whitehaven with a 16 grand mortgage were unlikely to be "sub prime" at the time they took out the 16k mortgage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One family in Wychavon bought a home council with a sub-prime loan for £16,000 – but they subsequently took out a second mortgage and loans secured against the property that increased the level of debt to £184,000 – that is, eleven and a half times the original loan, a rise of more than 1,000 per cent.

£16k to £184k? That's a lot of MEW. Still, they'll have enjoyed the high life for a year or two, pity that'll make living in the gutter all the more bitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally it was done to ensure new home owners would vote Tory. Later on it was discovered to be a nice way to pay for retirement and healthcare.

Slight misrepresentation. It wasn't a direct bribe and would never have worked as such. Longer term Thatcher was trying to make everyone an economic participant in the neo-liberal dream. Naturally like our current cretin, Thatcher thought this was "the right thing to do" and people would eventually see this as self evident and vote Tory accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
£16k to £184k? That's a lot of MEW. Still, they'll have enjoyed the high life for a year or two, pity that'll make living in the gutter all the more bitter.

UK is heading for the Dark Ages....imho....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the more people that loose the right to own a huge debt the better.

the idea that these shrewed property investors are so retarded that they cannot react to the prospect of being evicted and made homeless is unbelievable. The moment you suspect something you reacte and you look and make phone calls. I get the feeling there are plenty of people that would help you pay rent to them. However, the media paints these onetime shrewed property investors as gimps that just stand asnd stare as they are made homeless and wonder the streets crying like children because the just dont know what to do. Nessessity is the mother of invention unless you expect ans demand a free ride.

aaarrrrr didums, did someone take the crown of home owner away and force you to wear the soiled underpants of renting? arrr, shame shame, dont dry now and sulk and take your ball home, remember, you dont have a home now!!! Its mine!!!

I wish you were right. A lot of these 'investors' (read: 20 or 30s somethings who only believe property goes up) ignore the calls and mail and hope the problem goes away. All too familiar a mindset in modern Britain unfortunately.

Although for the BTL crew i have zero sympathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brits are obsessed about too many things, one of them are house prices! The whole nation needs to calm down, it needs new leadership and new way of thinking. You sold your sole for a 2 up 2 down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But but but, I didn't think Britain had sub-prime lending ;)

I sometimes wonder whether the whole home owning thing was more to do with enabling pensioners to remortgage and pay for their own retirement and healthcare than anything else.

Mind you, if we didnae have banks, I guess houses would fall back to minimal prices that you could afford after 2-3 years, or less, of saving anyhow.

The aim is restrict supply of a commodity which most people consider to be a requirement for living, namely a house. When you have a large population who don't have what they want it makes what they want very expensive to acquire. This is why planning regulations are so draconian. If you want to sell something at a profit, it makes sense to do what you can to prevent people from getting that thing easily. If people are in need of a place to live, everyone else should be limited in the quantity of housing that they may occupy so that it is easier to buy a home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reading betweeen the hopeless news worker lines of drivel, it looks like the people "intentionally homeless" are those who have MEW'd excessively rather than sub prime residential mortgage lending in the first place.

The first example quoted of the family from Whitehaven with a 16 grand mortgage were unlikely to be "sub prime" at the time they took out the 16k mortgage.

Yep, if you sell your equity to the bank, it is through your own actions that you no longer have a house. The reason the banks take collateral against the loan is that if you don't pay it back, they will be OK. If I take out insurance against my luggage going missing it has not been "intentionally" stolen, or lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mary Unwin agrees: ‘If you can give someone up to six times more than they are earning that can’t be responsible. They deliberately target people and lend as much as possible because it’s copper bottomed. They know they’ll get their money back.’

They wil not necessarily get their money back ! ...the liar lenders are worried too...its not looking so copper bottomed now.. :P These subprime lenders didnt think house prices would drop like they are. They were working on safety margins, when they dished out these silly loans, that are quickly being eroded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brits are obsessed about too many things, one of them are house prices! The whole nation needs to calm down, it needs new leadership and new way of thinking. You sold your sole for a 2 up 2 down.

Bang on the nail! I think you mean "soul" though! Otherwise - a 2 up 2 down for the base of your shoe is a pretty good deal methinks! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The council argues that public funds should not be spent on people

who have been financially irresponsible.

:lol::lol:

What about banks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mary Unwin agrees: ‘If you can give someone up to six times more than they are earning that can’t be responsible. They deliberately target people and lend as much as possible because it’s copper bottomed. They know they’ll get their money back.’

They wil not necessarily get their money back ! ...the liar lenders are worried too...its not looking so copper bottomed now.. :P These subprime lenders didnt think house prices would drop like they are. They were working on safety margins, when they dished out these silly loans, that are quickly being eroded.

:P:P Oh yeah!!

The LIAR LENDERS

are getting their just desserts now -- SERVES THEM RIGHT!! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, if you sell your equity to the bank, it is through your own actions that you no longer have a house. The reason the banks take collateral against the loan is that if you don't pay it back, they will be OK. If I take out insurance against my luggage going missing it has not been "intentionally" stolen, or lost.

Actually - I do think that the banks HAVE intentionally stolen.... They are as bent as a 9 bob note.

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:   296 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.