Cunliffe's constituent Liu?

[Ocean1]

Do banks make money out of mortgagee sales?

Apparently not. Which I can easily believe, having looked at a mortgagee sale here for an overseas friend.

Everyone advised him to leave it alone, including his lawyer and the agent selling it. It was a million dollar's worth of anyone's money sold any other way, but it eventually went for about $350k. The agent said he thought the bank was into it to the tune of about twice that.

Funny thing is, most mortgagee sales I've seen have been mid-to-top end stuff.

[Katman]

They do, it cost them shitloads to foreclose.

So is the increase in mortgagee sales over the years simply down to inept bankers?

[Ocean1]

So is the increase in mortgagee sales over the years simply down to inept bankers?

It's not that hard to understand, Shirley? Lend money to people likely to have trouble servicing the loan and you'll get people not servicing the loan.

As to who's fault that is, most seem to blame the banks. It's unheard of for a bank to default on it's side of the deal, though. So I'd suggest inept borrowing is more likely to be the problem.

[Katman]

So I'd suggest inept borrowing is more likely to be the problem.

So maybe it's not so much that houses are more affordable than 60 years ago but rather that they are perceived to be more affordable.

Perception can be a funny thing.

[Ocean1]

So maybe it's not so much that houses are more affordable than 60 years ago but rather that they are perceived to be more affordable.

If easier access to money coincided with higher mortgagee sales then you don't need people's perceptions changing to explain it, do you?

Although it's likely that quite a few simply didn't understand the likely impact of, say loss of overtime at work, a couple of percent increase in interest, replacing a fukt car. In which case a bit of financial literacy wouldn't go far wrong, eh?

Either way, good to see the numbers declining, it's a fucking miserable time for the family involved.

[Katman]

Although it's likely that quite a few simply didn't understand the likely impact of, say loss of overtime at work, a couple of percent increase in interest, replacing a fukt car. In which case a bit of financial literacy wouldn't go far wrong, eh?

Hence why I was interested in the comparison between the percentage of mortgagee sales per house purchases 60 years ago and today.

If there is a wide spread false perception of affordability it can hardly be seen as an indication that home ownership is more affordable today.

[Katman]

Perhaps the problem is that we have become such as credit reliant society.

(This coming from someone who has no particular interest in having a mortgage, who along with his wife has no kids, zero debt and never owned a credit card).

[Ocean1]

Hence why I was interested in the comparison between the percentage of mortgagee sales per house purchases 60 years ago and today.

If there is a wide spread false perception of affordability it can hardly be seen as an indication that home ownership is more affordable today.

If perceptions of affordability are clearly false then why would you use them as an indication of actual affordability?

It makes more sense to compare today's actual house prices with historic prices and conclude that recent perceptions of housing unaffordability are little more than self-serving whining.

[Ocean1]

Perhaps the problem is that we have become such as credit reliant society.

(This coming from someone who has no particular interest in having a mortgage, who along with his wife has no kids, zero debt and never owned a credit card).

If there's a problem then that's probably it.

And congratulations, from someone generally believed be a capitalist who's business has never at any time borrowed money.

Although, as I said, if someone wants to borrow money then it's none of our business, as long as they're all growed up enough to keep it not our business.

[Katman]

If perceptions of affordability are clearly false then why would you use them as an indication of actual affordability?

You are the one claiming that buying a house is more affordable today.

If a significant percentage of house purchases end in mortgagee sale it would significantly alter the figures you're using for your perception of affordability.

[Ocean1]

You are the one claiming that buying a house is more affordable today.

If a significant percentage of house purchases end in mortgagee sale it would significantly alter the figures you're using for your perception of affordability.

Nope. I'm simply pointing out the fact that based on avg historical incomes buying a house is not significantly more expensive than it's ever been.

The figures in question are simply a direct comparison of historic income vs house prices, if mortgagee sales increase or decrease a point or two that doesn't alter either of those figures. Mortgagee sales represent only a tiny percentage of mortgages, and their numbers look to be related to ease of access to loans, not incomes or prices.

[Oscar]

What did Oscar call that sort of lending earlier?

Reckless lending. And it wasn't my phrase, it's a legal one.

[Oscar]

Do banks make money out of mortgagee sales?

Being as how they only start the process when the punter is 3 or more months behind in their payments and then the whole thing takes many more months where interest is not being paid and legal bills are racking up, and that the loan documents only allows them to recover what is owed and actual costs, no. Add in the opportunity cost of not have that money earning interest soemwhere else and the whole thing costs plenty.

[Oscar]

That's because it's not a problem. The blame is mine for many things, but it isn't my fault that you don't understand what it means to be a human being... anymore.

You have worked for everything and therefore you believe that you are entitled to it because you're better than others.
I don't begin to think how you fit into society, ever... but I know insurance salesmen are usually nice people.
And you are a strong and beautiful woman.

Wow.
Nothing like judging people whilst trying to save the world from itself.
You really are a pompous cunt.

[Oscar]

I've been banging on about little else for the last several pages.

With little effect.

I particularly liked this, from Matt Ridley: "Well, knock me down with a feather. You mean to say that during three decades when the government encouraged asset bubbles in house prices; gave tax breaks to pensions; lightly taxed wealthy non-doms; poured money into farm subsidies; and severely restricted the supply of land for housing, pushing up the premium earned by planning permission for development, the wealthy owners of capital saw their relative wealth increase slightly? Well, I’ll be damned."

I'm sorry for the repost, I was going to check, but if I had to go back and read more of Mad Mashy's deluded pompous twatery I could lose all faith in Western Civilisation.