Gmac Poison Pill

[Guest An Bearin Bui]

Again, what amazes me with these people is how old they are relative to a.) their financial inexperience and b.) the risks they are willing to undertake at an age when you should be consolidating gains, not risking it all in a massive gamble.

Geoff Morris, 61, who lives in St Neots, Cambridgeshire, had had enough of stockmarket speculation by 2003.

"I decided to try property. I went to a free workshop, was very impressed, and signed up for the full course. I aimed to get as many properties as I could, as quickly as possible. I admit I threw all caution to the wind. I assumed others would do the due diligence for me - after all I was paying," he says. "I put deposits down on properties still to be built in places like Manchester, Middlesbrough and Leeds, even though I had never been to any of them. And I bought into Florida - again, totally sight unseen."

Who engages in that kind of reckless speculation at 61? A 25 year old can go bankrupt quite easily and the repercussions aren't that grave as s/he could get back on track within a few years. If you're 61, you're facing into decreased earnings, increased medical / care costs and decreased time on the planet to accumulate wealth. What were they thinking??

You can only conclude that these people have had easy lives where they made easy money: got jobs straight away out of school /university without having to work too hard (what did people do in the 80s anyway? Sit around waiting for a telefax to come through or for the mail to arrive??), bought a house for 2.5 times their income and then watched it rocket in value. All just easy money in easy jobs and that's why they're complacent at 61, and willing to throw everything they have down the drain. If they had known any financial hardship and had had to save and work hard, they would never risk it all on a one-way bet at that age. 61 is a little late in life for learning hard lessons.

[Bloo Loo]

Again, what amazes me with these people is how old they are relative to a.) their financial inexperience and b.) the risks they are willing to undertake at an age when you should be consolidating gains, not risking it all in a massive gamble.

Who engages in that kind of reckless speculation at 61? A 25 year old can go bankrupt quite easily and the repercussions aren't that grave as s/he could get back on track within a few years. If you're 61, you're facing into decreased earnings, increased medical / care costs and decreased time on the planet to accumulate wealth. What were they thinking??

You can only conclude that these people have had easy lives where they made easy money: got jobs straight away out of school /university without having to work too hard (what did people do in the 80s anyway? Sit around waiting for a telefax to come through or for the mail to arrive??), bought a house for 2.5 times their income and then watched it rocket in value. All just easy money in easy jobs and that's why they're complacent at 61, and willing to throw everything they have down the drain. If they had known any financial hardship and had had to save and work hard, they would never risk it all on a one-way bet at that age. 61 is a little late in life for learning hard lessons.

As is always the case where compensation claims may follow, he is using the "I was clearly a victim and relied on their professionalism"

This type of attitude has been much debated on here, particularly regarding financial advisers. plop a certificate on the wall and you are now an expert, and people will spend away.

every con man knows this.

[Converted Lurker]

why oh why did B&B continue to buy the crap from GMAC? It's a fukcin scandal, bungs/favours for mates left right and centre. B&B continued to buy this shite well after the credit crunch began and way after GMAC could no longer flog it to the bond market...

Edited June 3, 2008 by Converted Lurker

[jimmy_joe]

Geoff Morris, 61, who lives in St Neots, Cambridgeshire, had had enough of stockmarket speculation by 2003.

And what happened to the stock market in 2003?

My dad had the same idea at the same age (a few years after the 2003 stock market rebound) but went 100% into cash. Not entirely risk-free of course, but because of people like Mr Morris he'll lose a lot of it in tax and inflation.

[The Spaniard]

Who engages in that kind of reckless speculation at 61?

He was 56 in 2003, not that that makes much difference.

[eric pebble]

"He now alleges the expected rents - and hence the valuations based on them - were grossly over-optimistic. Valuers told him to expect monthly rents as high as £855 for a one-bed flat, when, in reality, they never got more than £400-£500."

........

Do you how much that is per anum, Moron?...............

THAT IS £10,260 pa -- which needs to be found AFTER TAX -- and the person paying this has to find MORE money for things like.....

Council Tax [MASSIVE]

Travel Costs incl. Car costs, [MOT, Tyres, Mechanics etc etc.] Trains,

Food

Telephone/internet/mobile

Computer costs

Household costs like tv license, furnishings....

Clothes, Haircuts, Sanitary Products, etc etc.

Entertainment

.................... and the list goes on.....

HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVING IN A 1 ROOM RENTED FLAT IN CARDIFF WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THIS KIND OF MONEY?!!??

THREE PEOPLE? MAYBE?

WACKO!!!!!!!!??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!????????!!!!!!!!????????!!!!!!!!????????!!!!!!!!!!?????????

Edited June 3, 2008 by eric pebble

[bobby9983]

If buy to let was in any way a regulated industry. Then the sale of new build apartments to investors would be the biggest miss-selling scandal ever.

Every dirty trick in the book was used and the greed of the counter-parties unimaginable. For them not to see clearly the risks involved is staggering.

In my opinion London and the South East will eventually be hardest hit by this.

Due to loan sizes there and the amounts of cash that will be needed to subsidise rental income shortfalls when 90% and 85% loans reset with no products to remortgage to, people will be forced people to walk away in droves.

On a £300,000 loan in Docklands at 5% against an SVR of 7.5% is an extra £625 per month in interest.

The average rent on such a flat is what £300 per week? That means an investor will need to cough up £7000 in extra interest per year.

Times that by 10 properties and suddenly you have a £70k a year (i.e massive) problem.

[eric pebble]

Times that by 10 properties and suddenly you have a £70k a year (i.e massive) problem.

That is indeed a serious problem........

[eric pebble]

If buy to let was in any way a regulated industry. Then the sale of new build apartments to investors would be the biggest miss-selling scandal ever.

Every dirty trick in the book was used and the greed of the counter-parties unimaginable. For them not to see clearly the risks involved is staggering.

In my opinion London and the South East will eventually be hardest hit by this.

Scams have a nasty habit of biting their perpetrators back..... it takes time...... but it comes round in the end.... in some form or another.....

[Dunbrokin]

This made me laugh out loud (must have a strange sense of humour):

"Then he started to purchase the flats."

Reminds me of Bob Dylan:

"I started out on Burgundy, but soon hit the harder stuff"

Or an interview with a druggy:

You know, you do a couple of terraces, you feel ok, then a semi comes along and you think "why not, what harm can it do?" and before you know it you're doing flats.

[eric pebble]

This made me laugh out loud (must have a strange sense of humour):

"Then he started to purchase the flats."

Reminds me of Bob Dylan:

"I started out on Burgundy, but soon hit the harder stuff"

Or an interview with a druggy:

You know, you do a couple of terraces, you feel ok, then a semi comes along and you think "why not, what harm can it do?" and before you know it you're doing flats.