Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Bbc News This Morning 1 In 5 In Mortgage Trouble If Rates Increase

Recommended Posts

About 6:50 this morning Steph did a piece on the threat of rate raises about what happens if they went up by 3%!!! She appeared in complete panic to state that they "don't" think they'll raise that much and any increase will be small and incremental obviously to stop panic amongst the indebted.

No link on the BBC website but I think the research was done by a company called nutmeg.

Obviously the interest rate example given used someone on a IO mortgage and should that if they currently had a rate of 3% it would then move to 6%! Doubling the interest payments.

The guy from the research company pointed out that an increase from 1% to 2% in the interest charged would effectively be a 100% in repayment again I'm presuming that this is based on a IO mortgage.

He then went on to explain that people in the past had lived through much higher rates ie 15%, at which point Steph blurted out but house prices where cheaper then you could get a house for £20,000 obviously not realising what she was saying.

Didn't see it all but maybe worth watching on catchup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we better keep rates low then.... :ph34r:

On the plus side, the BBC are admitting that people have over stretched themselves, unless of course people are lying about the hardship to sway BOE to keep rates so they can continue to cash in for longer on the all that free funny money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If centeral banks had not lowered interest rates to 0.5% then people would not be in this mess.

Anyway, feckem - let them lose their houses, holidays annd disposable incomes - let them rent - let them take out 6 month insecure tenancies. What makes the bank renters so privalaved that interest rates need to be held down for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He then went on to explain that people in the past had lived through much higher rates ie 15%, at which point Steph blurted out but house prices where cheaper then you could get a house for £20,000 obviously not realising what she was saying.

Lol! She knows her onions, that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"at which point Steph blurted out but house prices where cheaper then you could get a house for £20,000"

There you are Mr Venger, PROOF that people simply see the price as the FACT, and the means to pay it as the item that needs to be fixed.

It is reported she blurted this gem.

People tend to blurt their true understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we're bankrupting the country for the sake of only 20% of the population?

No, we're bankrupting this country for the sake of the banks. As soon as they are strong enough to withstand a rise in defaults against a backdrop of falling prices, then all the props will be kicked away with a shrug and a "well what more do you want, we did all we could for you".

So Steph and Co can bleat all they like about 1 in 5 debtors being in trouble if rates rise, but they're looking down the wrong end of the kaleidoscope. Nobody gives a shit if the proles are in trouble, as long as the banks are doing fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the BBc headlines along the lines of:

4 in 5 savers in trouble if interest rates don't rise

Maybe someone clever can tell me why the BBc always seem to be on the side of the home owner and not the people save, the very people who have earned and been taxed on their money and support the economy/mortgage owners ?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we have even that cold comfort, as long as politicians believe that 'kicking away the props' will lose them votes.

One or other faction of the Trough Swilling Scum Party will get voted into government whatever happens. So regarding policy, you just need to look at who their paymasters are.

And it ain't the voting proles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, we're bankrupting this country for the sake of the banks. As soon as they are strong enough to withstand a rise in defaults against a backdrop of falling prices, then all the props will be kicked away with a shrug and a "well what more do you want, we did all we could for you".

So Steph and Co can bleat all they like about 1 in 5 debtors being in trouble if rates rise, but they're looking down the wrong end of the kaleidoscope. Nobody gives a shit if the proles are in trouble, as long as the banks are doing fine.

You've summed it up well FD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the threat of rate raises about what happens if they went up by 3%!!! .

The guy from the research company pointed out that an increase from 1% to 2% in the interest charged would effectively be a 100% in repayment

He then went on to explain that people in the past had lived through much higher rates ie 15%, at which point Steph blurted out but house prices where cheaper

All of the points above were also covered on Radio 5's "Wake up to Money" this morning.

The guest said many do not realise that the increase in rates from 1% to 2% is an increase in repayments of 100%, so for example, a repayment of £300 would go up to £600.

They asked listeners to send texts in to illustrate what high rates they used to pay, and several texted in pointing out they had 15% rates in the 90's. And of course someone on the show also mentioned that house prices were a lot cheaper then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One or other faction of the Trough Swilling Scum Party will get voted into government whatever happens. So regarding policy, you just need to look at who their paymasters are.

And it ain't the voting proles.

The proles are too busy with their ice bucket challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the BBc headlines along the lines of:

4 in 5 savers in trouble if interest rates don't rise

Maybe someone clever can tell me why the BBc always seem to be on the side of the home owner and not the people save, the very people who have earned and been taxed on their money and support the economy/mortgage owners ?????

Maybe it's because the trouble that savers are in is a slow, chipping-away-at-the-value-of-your-savings kind of trouble, rather than the more immediate (at least when it gets colder) it's-either-famine-or-hypothermia kind of trouble?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For any scum getting their financial information from Steph. on the BBC, it will be no more than background noise, and dog whistles. Whilst she is comely, in a Coronation Street way, the Great Unwashed will not even notice what is said.

Brilliant phrasing! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this only a real concern for people on interest only/tracker rates?

For e.g , for someone with a 90% mortgage whose fix was coming to an end and their SVR was 4%, surely the increase in payments would be about a quarter?

Am I missing something?

Edit for clarity re SVR

Edited by macfarlan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interview with the Nutmeg report guy here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04f8977

19 minutes in.

He points out that people think that if IRs go from, for example, 1% to 2% that their mortgage goes up 1% when in fact it actually goes up 100%.

Yet ask the average 11 year old what 1% of £100 is and they will generally have no problem saying £1. Then ask them what 2% of £100 is and they will probably manage to answer £2.

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 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.