We Are Facing Another Global Financial Crisis Of Epic Proportions

[LiveinHope]

It terms of sharing out despise, for me, it is a perfectly balanced equation. I despise both sides equally, but for different reasons.

[Bloo Loo]

The fault should lay with both of you. Nothing can happen with just one party.

and one side has everything the other wants, and that one side could walk away as there are 10 more waiting to take what you want.

But why walk when there is a sale to be made and no consequence?

[winkie]

The thing to remember is the people that sell you stuff don't care if you have the money or borrowed the money......they care not if you pay it back or not.......all they are interested is you got access to it, because if you hadn't they would not have sold their stuff.......no money/credit/debt = no sale.

Credit/debt card anyone?

[Bloo Loo]

The thing to remember is the people that sell you stuff don't care if you have the money or borrowed the money......they care not if you pay it back or not.......all they are interested is you got access to it, because if you hadn't they would not have sold their stuff.......no money/credit/debt = no sale.

Credit/debt card anyone?

At least in those days, the advert described the procedure more accurately

Hello Cash, let me pay and you can settle up (with me) later.

[billybong]

There's very few if any who don't know the score now on crazy house prices - from government, bankers to buyers and that includes the mathematicians with their faulty derivatives.

If/when the house price crash comes (and the sooner the better) there's no excuse to bail out the house price consequences - that is if there ever were any excuses.

Edited February 1, 2016 by billybong

[Noallegiance]

I can ask the Patsy for anything I like. Hey, give me an ocean going liner, it's my fault if I can't pay. thanks.

you have to love these dullards who are born yesterday.

You don't do yourself or your argument any good with the insults.

[evetsm]

You don't do yourself or your argument any good with the insults.

OK. if someone loans me a million without any due diligence, he's a rocket scientist.

there fixed it for you. hope you feel better.

[LiveinHope]

OK. if someone loans me a million without any due diligence, he's a rocket scientist.

there fixed it for you. hope you feel better.

Of course, in the absence of his 4rse being covered, he's an idiot not a rocket scientist. But surely, it's equally encumbent for the borrower to both not act like an idiot, and to realise that the lender is not a rocket scientist. Ultimately, without an idiot buyer there is no sale, however.

Edited February 1, 2016 by LiveinHope

[Noallegiance]

OK. if someone loans me a million without any due diligence, he's a rocket scientist.

there fixed it for you. hope you feel better.

I didn't feel bad. Your comment makes no sense.

I haven't blocked anyone yet. There's always a first time. I never considered it before. But I'd make an exception for teenager-esque outbursts and blatant keyboard warriorism.

Have a cuppa.

[Bloo Loo]

Of course, in the absence of his 4rse being covered, he's an idiot not a rocket scientist. But surely, it's equally encumbent for the borrower to both not act like an idiot, and to realise that the lender is not a rocket scientist. Ultimately, without an idiot buyer there is no sale, however.

Thing, is, the guy in the suit doesnt make the decision.

He gets the form filled in.

Someone else, an underwriter or something else makes the decision.

The guy in the suit may get 20 quotes for the loan...wide trawling will reveal "deals" like "no checks guaranteed" or "call our helpline for specific and individualised help.

Going back to the client with some form of yes is the name of the game..and people are surprised theyve "passed" in the game of credit...

[evetsm]

02

Of course, in the absence of his 4rse being covered, he's an idiot not a rocket scientist. But surely, it's equally encumbent for the borrower to both not act like an idiot, and to realise that the lender is not a rocket scientist. Ultimately, without an idiot buyer there is no sale, however.

how is it a crime to ask for a loan? I can surely ask for any loan I want, even a ludicrous amount. no crime in that.

[Exiled Canadian]

how is it a crime to ask for a loan? I can surely ask for any loan I want, even a ludicrous amount. no crime in that.

If you borrow money without a reasonable expectation that you will be able to pay it back on the terms quoted then in my book that's close to theft.

[zugzwang]

how is it a crime to ask for a loan? I can surely ask for any loan I want, even a ludicrous amount. no crime in that.

No, not unless you lie about your circumstances on the application form.

[Bloo Loo]

If you borrow money without a reasonable expectation that you will be able to pay it back on the terms quoted then in my book that's close to theft.

the issue is not the borrrowing of the money...people "apply" for a loan. the other party does due diligence, or doesnt.

[Exiled Canadian]

the issue is not the borrrowing of the money...people "apply" for a loan. the other party does due diligence, or doesnt.

Agreed, but when you sign the loan agreement you sign a promise to repay to the terms. If you don't reasonably believe that you will be able to repay the loan on the terms agreed that's effectively obtaining money by deception. Not that the lender shouldn't check you out of course. Otherwise that's like saying that because someone leaves their windows open they deserve to be burgled.

[Bloo Loo]

Agreed, but when you sign the loan agreement you sign a promise to repay to the terms. If you don't reasonably believe that you will be able to repay the loan on the terms agreed that's effectively obtaining money by deception. Not that the lender shouldn't check you out of course. Otherwise that's like saying that because someone leaves their windows open they deserve to be burgled.

Agreed.

Today, however, people are invited to buy a house Even if they think its out of reach.

They are then sold that they can do this,get this subsidy, take this term and if all goes to rats, here is the escape route.

Now, lets tour round your dream home again and see about signing.

[adamLancs]

Not at all, I despise banksters just as much as I despise the terminally stupid, unable to do a simple fag packet calculation, who then gloat and boast and then, when the reality of their utter stupidity and sheer lack of personal responsibility hits home, start crying and bleating and simply don't have the balls to man up and accept their incredible dumbness, choosing instead to try and blame all and sundry, rather than themselves. I find those who defend these complete and utter morons even worse.

Unfortunately there are a lot of good people that simply aren't academic. If I understand you then by your definition of not being able to do fag packet calculations, they do not deserve to own a home. If they do deserve to own a home, any home, then by being as you eloquently put it... terminally stupid, how must they then be able to weigh correctly the extent to which they can extend themselves that is fair and just to a sustainable society? After all, if they cannot budget correctly for food, cigarettes and a Sky subscription how are they possibly able to understand APR's and interest and inflation, and weigh risk accordingly? Not to mention the economics of maintenance and insurance and given that they are probably also shy to savings and pension provisions, and given that they remain terminally stupid... when their belts finally are forced to tighten by events they were not anticipating (and could not possibly, given the length of the entrenched status quo, have understood and prepared for) and they find themselves homeless, do you think they will be able to learn and digest the hard lessons of life that are there for the taking to anybody that is not terminally stupid? Given that they are.

I think we may as well just cut to the bottom line of your argument, that if you are stupid by some arbitrary measure decided by you then you have reached the level of sub-Tresbon human and at this level you are not entitled to even contemplate home ownership, and it is certainly not the bank's duty to make sure the recipient of a loan is able to 1) pay it back and 2) understand the risks, which would solve the problem in the first place.

It is very well saying one should not extend themselves into reckless debt or reap the consequences, but the measure of such recklessness, by human nature, is measured against those around you, by the status quo, by the culture and the lessons of history that are nurtured into the minds of subsequent generations, and by those future generations ability to weigh the future risk against all of that, even thought that ability is sometimes nil, and even though they have not themselves witnessed the fallout of what happens when things go wrong, as those who were around in the early 90's for example. Some people were repossessed after the 07 bubble, but the level of repossessions was not allowed to reach it's natural peak. As a consequence of that, the amount of risk-aversion instilled into a new generation of buyers was not allowed to reach it's natural peak. Even though you may not have voted for the politicians that made those policies, the burden of responsibility for that distortion lies with society as a whole, and the next generation will act accordingly, and risk will weigh less as a result.

Fecklessness is not as black and white as sometimes painted here. Many HPC posters are unusually clued-up. That is not the norm. A lot of people do struggle with fag packet calculations. They are not less deserving of a home than anybody else. They should be less likely to afford a better one than some. But it is the responsibility of the lenders to ensure that the shoe fits the foot, else we follow one sub-prime crisis with another as we realise the majority of people are, in-fact, by your definition, terminally stupid.

[jiltedjen]

The next move down looks a bit early to me. We'll see.

we are due a decent run at trying to break out of the bear market, just like in 2008 we had a large bounce. A tasty Bull trap.

This sucker is going down over the next few months, so far with very little real resistance could be due some resistance.

i guess over the next week or so we can see if we are due a bull trap or a speeding up of the falls.

I suspect some resistance at 5500, that will be the trigger of a lot of stimulus. from 5500 its anyones guess how the markets react to the stimulus. all bets are off!

Personally i'm hoping they will hold off for the bottom so they have plenty of ammunition for the 'recovery', when the markets will find good sentiment again.

[LiveinHope]

how is it a crime to ask for a loan? I can surely ask for any loan I want, even a ludicrous amount. no crime in that.

It's not criminal as far as I know, unless you are being fraudulent in claiming your ability to repay perhaps. However, asking for a loan you may have no hope of repaying, is that stupid or criminal. The borrower can of course go bankrupt, as can the lender if enough bad loans are made. I don't think either side can be excused.

Edited February 1, 2016 by LiveinHope

[Noallegiance]

Unfortunately there are a lot of good people that simply aren't academic. If I understand you then by your definition of not being able to do fag packet calculations, they do not deserve to own a home. If they do deserve to own a home, any home, then by being as you eloquently put it... terminally stupid, how must they then be able to weigh correctly the extent to which they can extend themselves that is fair and just to a sustainable society? After all, if they cannot budget correctly for food, cigarettes and a Sky subscription how are they possibly able to understand APR's and interest and inflation, and weigh risk accordingly? Not to mention the economics of maintenance and insurance and given that they are probably also shy to savings and pension provisions, and given that they remain terminally stupid... when their belts finally are forced to tighten by events they were not anticipating (and could not possibly, given the length of the entrenched status quo, have understood and prepared for) and they find themselves homeless, do you think they will be able to learn and digest the hard lessons of life that are there for the taking to anybody that is not terminally stupid? Given that they are.

I think we may as well just cut to the bottom line of your argument, that if you are stupid by some arbitrary measure decided by you then you have reached the level of sub-Tresbon human and at this level you are not entitled to even contemplate home ownership, and it is certainly not the bank's duty to make sure the recipient of a loan is able to 1) pay it back and 2) understand the risks, which would solve the problem in the first place.

It is very well saying one should not extend themselves into reckless debt or reap the consequences, but the measure of such recklessness, by human nature, is measured against those around you, by the status quo, by the culture and the lessons of history that are nurtured into the minds of subsequent generations, and by those future generations ability to weigh the future risk against all of that, even thought that ability is sometimes nil, and even though they have not themselves witnessed the fallout of what happens when things go wrong, as those who were around in the early 90's for example. Some people were repossessed after the 07 bubble, but the level of repossessions was not allowed to reach it's natural peak. As a consequence of that, the amount of risk-aversion instilled into a new generation of buyers was not allowed to reach it's natural peak. Even though you may not have voted for the politicians that made those policies, the burden of responsibility for that distortion lies with society as a whole, and the next generation will act accordingly, and risk will weigh less as a result.

Fecklessness is not as black and white as sometimes painted here. Many HPC posters are unusually clued-up. That is not the norm. A lot of people do struggle with fag packet calculations. They are not less deserving of a home than anybody else. They should be less likely to afford a better one than some. But it is the responsibility of the lenders to ensure that the shoe fits the foot, else we follow one sub-prime crisis with another as we realise the majority of people are, in-fact, by your definition, terminally stupid.

Gotta give it - awesome case.

[zugzwang]

the issue is not the borrrowing of the money...people "apply" for a loan. the other party does due diligence, or doesnt.

Borrowers lie about their circumstances. Lenders adjust the risk profile of their mortgage books to accommodate the deceit.

Wrong doing on both sides.

[Tresbon]

Unfortunately there are a lot of good people that simply aren't academic. If I understand you then by your definition of not being able to do fag packet calculations, they do not deserve to own a home. If they do deserve to own a home, any home, then by being as you eloquently put it... terminally stupid, how must they then be able to weigh correctly the extent to which they can extend themselves that is fair and just to a sustainable society? After all, if they cannot budget correctly for food, cigarettes and a Sky subscription how are they possibly able to understand APR's and interest and inflation, and weigh risk accordingly? Not to mention the economics of maintenance and insurance and given that they are probably also shy to savings and pension provisions, and given that they remain terminally stupid... when their belts finally are forced to tighten by events they were not anticipating (and could not possibly, given the length of the entrenched status quo, have understood and prepared for) and they find themselves homeless, do you think they will be able to learn and digest the hard lessons of life that are there for the taking to anybody that is not terminally stupid? Given that they are.

I think we may as well just cut to the bottom line of your argument, that if you are stupid by some arbitrary measure decided by you then you have reached the level of sub-Tresbon human and at this level you are not entitled to even contemplate home ownership, and it is certainly not the bank's duty to make sure the recipient of a loan is able to 1) pay it back and 2) understand the risks, which would solve the problem in the first place.

It is very well saying one should not extend themselves into reckless debt or reap the consequences, but the measure of such recklessness, by human nature, is measured against those around you, by the status quo, by the culture and the lessons of history that are nurtured into the minds of subsequent generations, and by those future generations ability to weigh the future risk against all of that, even thought that ability is sometimes nil, and even though they have not themselves witnessed the fallout of what happens when things go wrong, as those who were around in the early 90's for example. Some people were repossessed after the 07 bubble, but the level of repossessions was not allowed to reach it's natural peak. As a consequence of that, the amount of risk-aversion instilled into a new generation of buyers was not allowed to reach it's natural peak. Even though you may not have voted for the politicians that made those policies, the burden of responsibility for that distortion lies with society as a whole, and the next generation will act accordingly, and risk will weigh less as a result.

Fecklessness is not as black and white as sometimes painted here. Many HPC posters are unusually clued-up. That is not the norm. A lot of people do struggle with fag packet calculations. They are not less deserving of a home than anybody else. They should be less likely to afford a better one than some. But it is the responsibility of the lenders to ensure that the shoe fits the foot, else we follow one sub-prime crisis with another as we realise the majority of people are, in-fact, by your definition, terminally stupid.

By 'good' people, I assume you mean 'poor old souls who just wanted to own a home'™? They don't own a home, they own a massive debt, one they paid little to no thought about whatsoever and now they are facing the consequences of such stupidity when making the biggest financial decision of their life, somehow I'm supposed to feel sympathy for them and they should be absolved of all blame for decisions they made and signed up to? Feel free to save them with your own personal finances by all means. They will be very thankful I'm sure and you will no doubt feel very happy to have helped a 'good' person.

[Bloo Loo]

By 'good' people, I assume you mean 'poor old souls who just wanted to own a home'™? They don't own a home, they own a massive debt, one they paid little to no thought about whatsoever and now they are facing the consequences of such stupidity when making the biggest financial decision of their life, somehow I'm supposed to feel sympathy for them and they should be absolved of all blame for decisions they made and signed up to? Feel free to save them with your own personal finances by all means. They will be very thankful I'm sure and you will no doubt feel very happy to have helped a 'good' person.

Nobody is asking, or has asked for your sympathy.

Dont expect losers not to bleat and demand help.

[LiveinHope]

Nobody is asking, or has asked for your sympathy.

Dont expect losers not to bleat and demand help.

Yep the, loser banks have been asking for sympathy and bleating and demanding help, and seem to have got it. Now, it's the loser borrowers and I'd be as equally uncharitable as I would have been with the lenders.

Edited February 1, 2016 by LiveinHope

[Venger]

Fecklessness is not as black and white as sometimes painted here. Many HPC posters are unusually clued-up. That is not the norm. A lot of people do struggle with fag packet calculations. They are not less deserving of a home than anybody else. They should be less likely to afford a better one than some. But it is the responsibility of the lenders to ensure that the shoe fits the foot, else we follow one sub-prime crisis with another as we realise the majority of people are, in-fact, by your definition, terminally stupid.

Prices are way out of touch with earnings, in so many areas, so I don't accept it. And it's big big smiles from most of the buyers anyway. I'm holding out for HPC, not holding out to protect the HPI for others.

And FTBs aren't being pulled into excessive debt anyway, on the whole. MMR and HTB has even toughter stress testing as I understand it.

We all want a home (most of us) - but the way of thinking from many HPCers is the innocents should buy the £300K houses and because hpcers are unusually clued up, we should rent forever and sit back and watch the HPI glory.

It's a competitive market. Winners and losers. The burnt of market reality should be allowed to happen.

I'll sum it up purely by stating that if you've never found yourself in a situation where you realise that your actions are not a result of your own choices, then you have successfully circumvented 99.9% of the societal layers uncontrollably thrust upon you since birth. Some make bad choices in relationships. Some with houses. Some with what to have for dinner. Some then go on with poor choices in a misguided attempt to rectify the first bad choice. And so it goes on. Every aspect of life is subject to propoganda. See your own sentence I've ***'d above for evidence that you already understand this.

I don't absolve individuals of their part in the process. I just recognise that certain decisions they think they've made were in fact not their own. It's an undeniable fact. Otherwise the world would be a very different place.

Yes yes. Business and truth rarely occupy the same universe. IMO all business is the race to see who can con the layman best.

As a layman, I shall act according to my boolsheetarometer.

Edit - I left a career in the finance sector after 18 years because it broke my boolsheet detector.

Give the money back then.

And someone here is offering excuses for those paying high prices, having also offered the not as intelligent as HPCers view, when early last years his posts were all about a wall of money leaving London for a massive HPI wave.... on that basis they should be buying now with forever HPI mindsets.

There's no HPC only HPI++++ year on year, and we each have to do what's best for us. I'm not taking on jumbo mortgage and those who do have the responsibility to repay it.

With so much of the newbuild stock since year 2000 in possession of BTLers who've laid claim to it, bring on the HPC, instead of all this innocence nonsense, at painfully high prices, with £Trillions in equity on the older owner side.