# Bank of England/Interest Rates



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Thanks very much BOE - my mortgage will be going up AGAIN thanks to you fuckers.

Why can't you leave the f****ing interest rate alone and encourage more people to buy houses.

Predictions for it to be 5% before the end of the year will stretch a LOT of people's finances and you're doing no favours for anyone apart from your greedy selves :x


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

While I agree that it sucks etc. didn't you see it coming? They had to go up at some point.


----------



## Thinksta (Mar 26, 2004)

Being a young tike, a selfish git living in Surrey, and having just spent all of my money on a TT rather than a house deposit, I'm all up for interest rates rising and the housing market crashing like a bastard. :twisted:

To be honest, that's the only way that average first time buyers are going to be able to get a reasonable deal on their own house. Even if interest rates did stay low, house prices around here are just stupid at the moment. :evil:


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

They did have to go up, but they keep on putting them up 

I bought my flat when interest rates were 3.5%  and now they're 4.25%


----------



## andy761 (Jul 27, 2003)

Thinksta said:


> Being a young tike, a selfish git living in Surrey, and having just spent all of my money on a TT rather than a house deposit, I'm all up for interest rates rising and the housing market crashing like a bastard. :twisted:
> 
> To be honest, that's the only way that average first time buyers are going to be able to get a reasonable deal on their own house. Even if interest rates did stay low, house prices around here are just stupid at the moment. :evil:


Agree........ I've had to live at home with my parents too long. Our day is coming, its coming soon 8)


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

only been a couple of rate rises - bit niave to think the the rates would stay at 3.5% forever - esp when all those people are taking cheap loans and mortgages.

Sux though for those 1st time buyers that maybe did not take a fixed mort. to what they couold actually afford and now find themselves over stretched.


----------



## Thinksta (Mar 26, 2004)

...and the housing market shall fall before us! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

5 months ago I had to rent a room in a crap house in Guildford for far more than I wanted to pay, as the rental market was entirely in the sellers hands.

Now though there are tons of rooms available, and the prices are beginning to fall. I'm hoping that this is the beginning of a slide in the market for buy-to-let, leading to less demand for new houses, and prices beginning to fall. We'll see...


----------



## XXMetal (Jan 20, 2004)

lets hope so :?


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

ahh, but if house prices fall and interest rates go up... you'll still be paying the same each month (well, almost).


----------



## Thinksta (Mar 26, 2004)

Not if it's a _good_ crash. :twisted:


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

L8_0RGY said:


> Thanks very much BOE - my mortgage will be going up AGAIN thanks to you fuckers.
> 
> Why can't you leave the f****ing interest rate alone and encourage more people to buy houses.
> 
> Predictions for it to be 5% before the end of the year will stretch a LOT of people's finances and you're doing no favours for anyone apart from your greedy selves :x


Leaving the interest alone now only stores up problems for the future. Would you prefer to go back to 1989 when rates were 14%?

As for the "greedy selves" comment, the BoE is consitutionally independent, so don't benefit from higher rates at all.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

If you're a first time buyer and could afford a mortgage at 3.5% but not at 4.25% then you really shouldn't be buying. Budget yourself on a 5% mortgage and that way you know you'll be OK for a good couple of years at least.

My advice to 1st time buyers is to get on the ladder the moment you can afford it. Be it interest-only, 50 year mortgage, self-cert, anything to get your name on the deeds. The property *will* increase in value over a 5 year period and then you use the equity to buy your next property in a more conventional way. I remember my first mortgage when I was 22 - Â£56k for a 1 bed flat in S London. Â£360 a month repayment!!!  Those days are gone sadly.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Steve_Mc said:


> L8_0RGY said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks very much BOE - my mortgage will be going up AGAIN thanks to you fuckers.
> ...


BoE is the las to reduce rates and the first to increase them compared to the other international markets (Eurozone, USA, Japan). They are very annoying really. They never dropped the rates as low as the rest, and they already increase them, when the rest left them the same. They are over cautious, which is not justifiable.

They are meant to be independent...but are they?

My mortgage will go up again next month. But it won't be much on a Â£75k loan so I am not so worried yet. But my loan was for 5 years and it is difficult to budget for so many years ahead. One thing is for sure. I did the right thing 5 years ago to take the discounted mortgage, because if I had the fixed I was looking at, I would be paying a lot more now.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

vlastan said:


> Steve_Mc said:
> 
> 
> > L8_0RGY said:
> ...


Other countries have different economies you mad man. :roll:


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Steve_Mc said:


> L8_0RGY said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks very much BOE - my mortgage will be going up AGAIN thanks to you fuckers.
> ...


I doubt any of us would want or be able to afford any sort of mortgage at 14% but when Mervyn King started at the BoE everyone said he was the best thing since sliced bread and rates would be going down etc...

I don't how long ago exactly that was but it was probably a year and a half ago and we've had more increases than decreases.

Vlastan got it right in saying they're the last to reduce the interest, and the first to increase it.

A BBC economist was saying on the news last night that he had worked out they put the interest rate up a 1/4 every 3 months (or have done ever since Mervyn King was in charge) so we should all be prepared for another hike in August


----------



## chip (Dec 24, 2002)

L8_Orgy

why didn't you fix your mortgage to avoid any fluctuation in your monthly repayment?

rgds
chip


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

R1,

They may be different economies but we are all living in this world and world economy is moving on together. Just see how the markets are affected daily when they move up and down in America.

You cannot see the UK like an alien country that lives in its own.

Why did America reduce their interest rates so low when Britain didn't? And of course why America kept it down for so long when Britain already increased it for the 3rd time?

All these members of the BoE with an average age of 55, they think they know everything. Oh well...they have paid their mortgages and they are paid a fat salary to screw up our lives.

If they really want stability...stop moving the interest rates up and down all the time and keep them steady.

If we all end up paying more for the mortgage, then we won't have money to spend of clothing and dining and travelling. So the economy will suffer in other parts.

Keep everhing cheap, including mortgages, so people can afford to buy them and keep stimulating the economy.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

> Vlastan got it right in saying they're the last to reduce the interest, and the first to increase it


Thats the whole point though - controls the economy and tries to stablise the growth and contraction. One way is bound to be quick the other slow.

But hell what do I know - - - - - I see dead folk


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

It is good to see them rise. With a 25 year capped mortgage, fixed interest car loan etc it can only be good  (says he smuggly)

No doubt you guy will remind me of this if sh1t hits fan.....


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

Thinksta said:


> Being a young tike, a selfish git living in Surrey, and having just spent all of my money on a TT rather than a house deposit, I'm all up for interest rates rising and the housing market crashing like a bastard. :twisted:
> 
> To be honest, that's the only way that average first time buyers are going to be able to get a reasonable deal on their own house. Even if interest rates did stay low, house prices around here are just stupid at the moment. :evil:


interest rates are put up to curb consumer spending,not just house purchases
the more sensible ones among us who buy stability for ourselfs and our children are now going to pay for the reckless holiday makers and car buyers!
so when i lose my house because you bought a TT, me and my kids are gonna move in with you and ya mom ya selfish t*at


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Suppose the rate goes up to 17% which it could and has done in the past! Then what are going to do? Surely you have made allowances? :?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

It will never go this high up again. The economies are completely different compared to what they were 10 years ago.


----------



## Thinksta (Mar 26, 2004)

stephengreen said:


> so when i lose my house because you bought a TT, me and my kids are gonna move in with you and ya mom ya selfish t*at


Hurray - I've offended the infamous Stephen Green! :wink:

You're absolutely welcome to move into my house should you lose yours, but you wouldn't enjoy it much because it's small, manky, and all I can afford with the current house prices... but no there'd be no arguing allowed.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

I am amazed at how many global economic experts there are on this forum. Truly awesome. :?


----------



## dimitt (Apr 21, 2004)

question: how come when the interest rate increases, in the space of a couple days, credit cards/mortages are increased by the banks! AND when the rates decrease it takes a couple of weeks for them to take action!

:evil:


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

chip said:


> L8_Orgy
> 
> why didn't you fix your mortgage to avoid any fluctuation in your monthly repayment?
> 
> ...


'Cos i got an interest only tracker mortgage and i therefore couldn't fix.

I have a rather large mortgage - financially, not in comparison to the value of the flat, so every time the interest rate goes up i breath a heavy sigh


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Thinksta said:


> Hurray - I've offended the infamous Stephen Green! :wink:


Not hard to do :wink:



Thinksta said:


> You're absolutely welcome to move into my house should you lose yours, but you wouldn't enjoy it much because it's small, manky, and all I can afford with the current house prices... but no there'd be no arguing allowed.


Not wanting to start an argument, as i know Stephen likes a bit of beef with me and others but i thought he lived in a manky area (other posts hint at this) :wink:


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

L8_0RGY said:


> Thinksta said:
> 
> 
> > Hurray - I've offended the infamous Stephen Green! :wink:
> ...


no orgy as usual you dont/cant read posts properly.
i said that like diry ive come from a more modest background than i currently enjoy. its this that gives me a more balanced view on life and makes me more likely to champion the oppressed and less fortunate people of the land from arrogant dickheads that think that they deserve to be taught a lesson :wink:


----------



## scavenger (Jun 25, 2002)

Statistically mortgage rates have been 7.25% over the last 10 years. Whenever increasing/taking a mortgage it is wise to budget on this figure rather than the current rates.

All available to read at http://www.moneyfacts.co.uk/

One other titbit, expect another 2 interest rate increases this year.

And some-one said your house will increase in value over 5 years. I beg to differ. I bought a house in 1989 and sold it in 1999 for a few thousand less than I paid for it.


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

scavenger said:


> Statistically mortgage rates have been 7.25% over the last 10 years. Whenever increasing/taking a mortgage it is wise to budget on this figure rather than the current rates.
> 
> All available to read at http://www.moneyfacts.co.uk/
> 
> ...


As with everything, it depends where you buy, what you do to it, and what the market is like.

I've never heard of anyone losing money on property before (and i work in this business) so, sorry to hear this!


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

L8_0RGY said:


> scavenger said:
> 
> 
> > Statistically mortgage rates have been 7.25% over the last 10 years. Whenever increasing/taking a mortgage it is wise to budget on this figure rather than the current rates.
> ...


Not heard of losing money on property. Where were you during the nineties???

I bought a flat in 1988 for Â£42K paid mortgage repayments for 8 years of approx Â£28K and sold for Â£36K. Bloody good investment that!

As an aside though I bought the current home in 1995 and seen my investment more than treble in value.


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

mighTy Tee said:


> L8_0RGY said:
> 
> 
> > scavenger said:
> ...


I was going to school!!!


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Surely if you "work in the business" then you'd be aware about all sides to property ownership, the risks and what's happened in recent times. I hope you're involves in sales and giving people advice. :?


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

scoTTy said:


> Surely if you "work in the business" then you'd be aware about all sides to property ownership, the risks and what's happened in recent times. I hope you're involves in sales and giving people advice. :?


I certainly am aware of most or all sides of property ownership (or i think i am)

:lol: I work for a property investment group actually :wink:


----------



## scavenger (Jun 25, 2002)

L8_0RGY said:


> I certainly am aware of most or all sides of property ownership (or i think i am)


Please don't take this personally 0rgy, but you seem to be talking out of your arse. The housing market has been extremely volatile over the last 15 years. A house buyer in 1989 would have seen their property drop by 50% in value over a 2 year period and seen a monthly interest rate rise up to a maximum of around 16-17%. House values plummeted to as much as 50% of their purchase price.

The market took around 10 years to recover from this. In the late 90's prices started to increase in certain areas of the country, spreading to other areas over the next 4 years, leading to the current financial housing disaster we have now.

As you "work in the business", please do some research before making off the cuff comments about an industry you "REALLY" should know about.


----------



## kingcutter (Aug 1, 2003)

ladies handbags at the ready


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Would you prefer that incorrect comments are left to stand. It's a forum for debate and discussion and that means there will be disagreement.

This has nothing to do with handbags at dawn?

Thanks for your useful contribution to this discussion.


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

scavenger said:


> L8_0RGY said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly am aware of most or all sides of property ownership (or i think i am)
> ...


Given that i only turned 23 a month ago, i wouldn't have been aware of the market 15 years ago as i was 7 then!! 

Again, in the late 90's, i was as stated earlier, and didn't therefore work property, and therefore wasn't aware of the goings on in it.

OK?


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Perhaps you should have considered your lack of knowledge prior to professing how much you knew about your industry. :?

You work for a property investment company but what is your role? Presumably you're not giving advice to customer on where to invest?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

scoTTy said:


> Perhaps you should have considered your lack of knowledge prior to professing how much you knew about your industry. :?
> 
> You work for a property investment company but what is your role? Presumably you're not giving advice to customer on where to invest?


Bloody hell - personal attacks ahoy!!

I'm in the rather unenviable position of having to rent AND buy at the same time... My working arrangements are such that I could be working anywhere in the country (preferable to not having a job at all...)

Thankfully, the mortgage I have doesn't stretch me anywhere near what I could afford... but I'm having to pay an extra Â£550 a month on top of running a house (which I get to see at weekends if I'm lucky) to rent a flat close to where I work.

Would have made a good bet for me to buy a flat as well - but the sodding by-to-let market means that there still seems to be (too) healthy competition in that area...

I can't afford the time to move closer to work. And if I did, I can bet my job would move again.

But whilst I don't like it, I do accept that interest rates will rise. What I find really seedy is the way the banks and building societies chose to profit from these rises. a 1% rise in interest rates will see a 1% rise in your mortgage rates. 1 1% FALL is only likely to see a (belated) .5% or .75% fall in your mortgage. They seem quick to raise the rates, slow to lower them again, and in the meantime, they "profit" to the tune of millions of pounds...


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

scoTTy said:


> Perhaps you should have considered your lack of knowledge prior to professing how much you knew about your industry. :?
> 
> You work for a property investment company but what is your role? Presumably you're not giving advice to customer on where to invest?


People have asked me in the past about where and when to invest but as that isn't our business, i tell them the aforementioned.

I don't have a lack of knowledge - how much did you know about the property business or any business when you were 8 years old???

Probably as much as i did.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you should have considered your lack of knowledge prior to professing how much you knew about your industry. :?
> ...


Will he ever learn? :x

Personal attacks are against the forum rules. We have a huge thread discussing this in the off topic room and before the thread is even finished, Scotty is breaking once again forum rules!!

Stephengreen made it clear that we ALL follow the forum rules, if we want this site to work well. Not just Vlastan and Abi.

Also to whom, do whom do you report a moderator for breaking rules?


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Exactly V.

I started an innocent enough thread, and before i know it, i've got a moderator of all people having a go at me.

Does this not say something about the people that are picked to be moderators?? Do they feel they are untouchable?


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

L8_0RGY said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you should have considered your lack of knowledge prior to professing how much you knew about your industry. :?
> ...


I'm five years older than you so was probably about 13 at the time. However, I'm more than aware of the goings on in that era as it is economic history. I'm really suprised that you weren't aware of the events just through day to day conversations with people. I'm even more suprised that you haven't been made aware of it by your employers. Anyhow, I don't care - just airing my views. Hell, I found out out last week that half my office hadn't heard of Joey Deacon!!


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

[1] My post has nothing to do with being a moderator or not. I am allowed to post my thoughts as any one else is.
[2] I have no moderator status in this particular forum.
[3] I have to abide by the same rules as everyone else. If the moderators of this forum feel it was a personal attack, then I'm sure I'll be informed.

I actually don't think it was a personal attack. I was querying someone who claimed :


> I certainly am aware of most or all sides of property ownership (or i think i am)
> 
> I work for a property investment group actually


It seemed to me to be a hollow claim as there was no demonstrated knowledge of the history of property ownership so I was following up to get more information.

Ho hum.

p.s.


vlastan said:


> Will he ever learn? :x
> 
> Personal attacks are against the forum rules. We have a huge thread discussing this in the off topic room and before the thread is even finished, Scotty is breaking once again forum rules!!


Vlastan - are you still beefing on about my one forum indiscrestion? Nov '03 and you still struggling with it. You're a lot more sensative than I ever imagined. :roll:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> [1] My post has nothing to do with being a moderator or not. I am allowed to post my thoughts as any one else is.
> [2] I have no moderator status in this particular forum.
> [3] I have to abide by the same rules as everyone else. If the moderators of this forum feel it was a personal attack, then I'm sure I'll be informed.
> 
> ...


[1] You are free to post your views but you should also follow the forum rules.
[2] It doesn't matter if you are a moderator in this room or not. You are a moderator after all in this forum and you should be more careful not to offend people with your personal views. You should be an example for all of us to follow, not to avoid.
[3]3 people complained that this is a personal attack. Me, Jamp and L8orgy...do you need more than that? Or do we have to send IMs to the moderators?

I mean how would you like for us to come and comment that you don't know something relating to your working environment or the industry you work in?

This has nothing to do with what you called me last year. This has to do with being fair to people. It has to do that you are always the first to critise others, but you hate when others comment about your attitude.


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

vlastan said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > [1] My post has nothing to do with being a moderator or not. I am allowed to post my thoughts as any one else is.
> ...


I couldn't be bothered arguing Scott as i'm not argumentative, but how would you like it if i came up to you and said that for argument sake,

"It seems to me a hollow claim that you're a banker"

Why would anyone pretend to be someone they're not :? ??

Cheers for the back up V [smiley=cheers.gif]


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> I mean how would you like for us to come and comment that you don't know something relating to your working environment or the industry you work in?


I'm a realist and I know there's tonnes of things I don't know about my working environment. If I ever put up a post where I say something that is wrong about my industry then I'd expect to be corrected. After all there's enough techies on here to do so.


vlastan said:


> This has nothing to do with what you called me last year. This has to do with being fair to people. It has to do that you are always the first to critise others, but you hate when others comment about your attitude.


I don't "hate" others comments I listen to them. Re-reading L8_ORGY's comments it appears he has taken my post as a personal attack so I therefore apologise to him as this was not the intention.
I took his phrase of "I've never heard of anyone losing money on property before (and *i work in this business*)" to suggest he knew more than most about this due to his job, where as in fact anyone old enough knew different. Perhaps when he reads this he can explain why the second part of the phrase was included as I obviously misunderstood it.



L8_ORGY said:


> I couldn't be bothered arguing Scott as i'm not argumentative, but how would you like it if i came up to you and said that for argument sake,
> "It seems to me a hollow claim that you're a banker"
> Why would anyone pretend to be someone they're not ??


If I made such a claim then it would be totally bogus and you'd be right in saying so. I certainly wouldn't take any offence from it.

I did not suggest you were pretending to be someone you're not. I simply got the impression that you were stating things as facts when they weren't.
Apologies if it came over as calling you a liar. I was simply stateing, as others have, that you were incorrect.

Please feel free to IM any of the moderators if you still feel agrieved by anything in this thread.


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

scoTTy said:


> Please feel free to IM any of the moderators if you still feel agrieved by anything in this thread.


I'm not that bothered tbh, and in all my time on here, i've never sent a message to a moderator, and probably never will as so many things are said over the net to people who don't really know each other that i think the moderators would be bogged down with complaints if everyone took this opinion.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

Bloody hell - what a hilarious thread. Why's everyone getting prickly about "personal attacks" all of a sudden? Completely agree with Scotty - if someone says something that is utter bollocks and backs it up with a comment along the lines of "I should know, I work in the industry" then how else are we supposed to respond?

I can't believe the naivety displayed by some people on this thread. The fact that there are people out there who believe that the Bank of England put interest rates up just to piss everyone off, and that they should keep them low to keep everyone happy is unbelievable.

Perhaps some of you should look up the word "inflation" in your dictionaries. If the BoE kept interest rates low permanently, this would lead to people spending rather than saving. Being very simplistic, this would eventually result in the economy "overheating" - the sort of price rises we see in the housing market would permeate through elsewhere as supply fails to keep up with demand. Imports would increase and the balance of payments would suffer. Eventually, things would go bang, and the economy would go into recession.

Controlling interest rates is a way of fine-tuning the economy and preventing a boom/bust economy which is not good for anyone - we want stability. The movement of this decision to the BoE rather than the government was very wise - it prevented the government from conjuring up mini-booms in advance of an election, and hopefully we will never go back to the days of 15% interest rates.

I didn't start work until the mid-90s but I read the papers and watched the news - comments like "I've never known anyone to lose out on property" are really why we have such a problem in the UK housing market at the moment.


----------



## Thinksta (Mar 26, 2004)

Too right.


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

I concur


----------



## scavenger (Jun 25, 2002)

L8_0RGY said:


> Given that i only turned 23 a month ago, i wouldn't have been aware of the market 15 years ago as i was 7 then!!
> 
> Again, in the late 90's, i was as stated earlier, and didn't therefore work property, and therefore wasn't aware of the goings on in it.
> 
> OK?


Granted at 7 the housing market wouldn't have been of much interest to you. I would have thought that given your profession some education would have been provided on what has happened in very recent history.

As for comments from Jam and Vlast about personal attacks from ScoTTy, what complete and utter nonsense. He has merely provided an opinion on a subject. As he clearly states, he is not a moderator in this forum, are you now stating he is not entitled to his own opinion because he is a Moderator and therefore should no longer post any replies to any subject?.

He has not "attacked" anyone, he has merely offered his opinion on a subject. I am sure 0rgy would agree that on hindsight, his statement was factually incorrect and would hopefully acknowledge he has learnt something from this debate.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

scavenger said:


> L8_0RGY said:
> 
> 
> > Given that i only turned 23 a month ago, i wouldn't have been aware of the market 15 years ago as i was 7 then!!
> ...


I was actually taking the piss...

Although, as it turns out, it does seem that the OP took offence at ScoTTy's comment.

There has been a healthy debate on moderation and personal attacks on another thread. Personally, I'm all for them :twisted: but they ARE against the forum rules, and I wish to see the rules applied equally to everyone, or not at all...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Folks.

Let's not confuse personal attacks with personal criticism.

'Personal Attacks' imply malice and damage or wilful hurt intended as a direct result.

'Personal Criticism' suggests pointing out anothers shortcomings, reasonings, stance on anything - all tempered with logic and some supported justification.

e.g.

"Tim you are an arse because you drive a Nissan, and because you drive a Nissan that also makes you socially and sexually inadequate", is a *personal attack*. (not that Jampott would likely care :wink: )

Whereas,

"Tim, you drive that Nissan like a pensioner. You can't even shake off a diesel BMW - having a fast car does not automatically make you a good driver as person A, B or C can testify", is no more than a *personal observation/criticism*. (actually Tim would probably prefer the 'Attack')

Above examples for illustrative purposes only.  :wink:

Some of you folk should learn the difference. Or just be as thick skinned as others here. :twisted:

Always remember that you are in the FLame Room, not a Latte Bar or a Cheese and Wine Party.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

garyc said:


> Folks.
> 
> Let's not confuse personal attacks with personal criticism.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure which category "garyc, you are a cheesy knob-end of the highest order" fits into? :twisted:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Folks.
> ...


Well, "Gary you are a cock" could quite easily be supported by examples that would make it fall into the structured personal criticism category.


----------



## jonno (May 7, 2002)

garyc said:


> Always remember that you are in the FLame Room, not a Latte Bar or a Cheese and Wine Party.


Absolutely priceless Gary
:lol:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

That's a bit fucked then. Its also a phrase I can neatly use in ANY room on the forum, since it didn't contain any swear words...

I'm busy coning off the A1001 down past the Galleria for a race when you get that shitty beemer down next time


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> That's a bit fucked then. Its also a phrase I can neatly use in ANY room on the forum, since it didn't contain any swear words...
> 
> I'm busy coning off the A1001 down past the Galleria for a race when you get that shitty beemer down next time


You have IM.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

garyc said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > That's a bit fucked then. Its also a phrase I can neatly use in ANY room on the forum, since it didn't contain any swear words...
> ...


as do you...

(although its quite likely that, next time you refresh the main page, you'll get a popup that tells you that. So I've just wasted <-----> that much of my time adding yet another off-fucking-topic post to this thread. Arse)


----------



## SteveS (Oct 20, 2003)

You want to follow that bit of road right down to the couple of miles or so before the main A1 (which runs parallel) meets the M25........


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

Is it OK to say garyc and jampott are both knob-ends? It's not personal because I'm grouping them together?
:lol:

I don't think the post in question was a personal attack. It was provoking debate in a typically flame room manner. What's wrong with that?

And in true politically correct fashion, as I'm Greek I can say that Vlastan is a kebab eating sweaty *** who can't even finish a bloody stadium, and he can say the same about me. But you lot aren't allowed to (with one or 2 exceptions).


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

I'm relieved to see that my understanding of what I posted seems to be shared by the majority.
I was beginning to think my judgement was extremely out of line with everyone so thankyou for letting me know I'm not totally out on a limb.


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

scoTTy said:


> I'm relieved to see that my understanding of what I posted seems to be shared by the majority.
> I was beginning to think my judgement was extremely out of line with everyone so thankyou for letting me know I'm not totally out on a limb.


OK time for my two pennorth. ScoTTy you were completely IN order so far as I'm concerned - GaryC summed the differences between personal attack and constructive debate in an eloquent fashion.

Hopefully L8 has learned something about the property market over the last 20 years which he didn't know previously - but ignorance is no excuse.

I am intrigued to know what he does tho - maybe he's the bloke that goes around putting the For Sale boards up 

I now look forward to more entertaining JampoTT (who I have met and is a top bloke) vs GaryC (who failed to turn up to a lunch appointment with me and Snaxo) debate.


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

R6B TT said:


> I am intrigued to know what he does tho - maybe he's the bloke that goes around putting the For Sale boards up


If he is, I think we should change the rules on personal attacks


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

R6B TT said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm relieved to see that my understanding of what I posted seems to be shared by the majority.
> ...


All out of knob jokes for now. Let's 'do lunch' :wink:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

The thing I find most worrying, is that you people sometimes just don't know when I'm taking the piss :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> The thing I find most worrying, is that you people sometimes just don't know when I'm taking the piss :lol: :lol: :lol:


Is this some sort of a joke? :?:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

garyc said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > The thing I find most worrying, is that you people sometimes just don't know when I'm taking the piss :lol: :lol: :lol:
> ...


Actually garyc, you're about the only person who CAN tell when I'm taking the piss. So I assume you're taking the piss yourself now


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


Are you saying that you sometimes experience communication difficulties Tim?

You are amongst friends now.

Would you like to talk to The Group about your feelings?

Tell us about your relationship with your mother...

ps Back ON TOPIC. I am rather pleased interest that rates have gone up. That's because I have been locked into a higher rate deal on my rather too large mortgage. My current remortgage going through actually saves me Â£300 a month over what I have been paying for last 3 years, even after paying the penalties.

pps Whilst ostensibly independant of the commercial banks, the BOE still has a vested interest in maximising the banking sectors profits and interest is the profit driver. They all stick together.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

garyc said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


You must have taken some SERIOUSLY bad financial advice to be paying Â£300 per month extra on a mortgage payment (ceteris paribus and all that).... ouch!

To think, you could have bought a well specced Ford Fiesta or maybe even a basic Focus with the ~Â£10k you've "wasted".... :-*


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


Not really. Think back where rates were three years ago and think 'fixed term' big mortgage, and get out penalties, and it stacks up. Although I fannied (actually couldn't be arsed since the Financial Serviced industry is _so_ dull and oblique) around deciding whether or not to take the hit and get out sooner, so therefore have enjoyed none of the past 3 years rate reductions.

Now I have, it is all upside.

As for a Fiesta. Hmm. :wink: I've also wasted more money than that in the pub over the time, so never quite think like that. Life's just too short. Unless you are skint.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Money spent in the pub is rarely wasted. (c)

There's me counting how much money I've lost by only having a smallish mortgage on a cheap house, when I could have bought another property 2 years ago and watched it rise by 25% in that time


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

This thread is hilarious, but it does show the diversity of background and ages of the folk that buy TTs. What is surprising is that people, young as they may be, are cribbing about minute changes in interest rates and are still able to drive sports cars. Don't these people have parents to remind them of the parable of the young family with two children that were thrown out on the street because the repayments on their mortgage quadrupled in two years! Unfortunately it was a story that was repeated all over Britain.

As a young man with a mortgage and a sports car we can safely assume that you will be able to save more than most in later life. At which point you will be complaining that interest rates aren't going up fast enough. Remember that the UK has, in general, more money invested than borrowed. Therefore there are alot of people, especially pensioners, who will be pleased to see the rate rise.


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> pps Whilst ostensibly independant of the commercial banks, the BOE still has a vested interest in maximising the banking sectors profits and interest is the profit driver. They all stick together.


The BoE's mandate is anti-inflationary, not pro-profitability. Through changing the price of day-to-day money they influence short-term capital flows. Through communication they help form market opinion on longer term rates (more relevant for large scale corporate investment decisions). History shows this monetarist approach is the most effective way of controlling inflation and all its effects on the real economy. It's only through keeping inflation under control that we have been able to enjoy such low rates recently. With the global economy showing signs of recovery and with commodity prices on the rise (sure we all know about oil, but did you know that copper for instance is up around 70% year-on-year) a little fine-tuning now is justified to dampen inflation, which will keep rates lower in the future, for longer.

Corporate profitability, including banks, doesn't come into it. After all it was the BoE that let Barings go bust.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Steve_Mc said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > pps Whilst ostensibly independant of the commercial banks, the BOE still has a vested interest in maximising the banking sectors profits and interest is the profit driver. They all stick together.
> ...


Actually it's about using the interst rates and money supply to control inflation _or_ stimulate (reflate?) the economy as deemed appropriate. Inflation is the norm though.

So I agree. But without getting into the Keynsian discussion about interest rates (as well as money supply) being the key inflationary control of the BOE, and that by no strange coincidence, it is _always_ to the banks profit advantage each time the BOE uses it's interest rate control instrument to curb inflation (or accelerate growth), so the two are inextricably linked.

Add to that the fact that BOE is staffed by mainly ex-banking sector personnel (plus a few economists of course), and the not so subtle link between the two that I hinted at, becomes clearer.


----------



## IanWest (May 7, 2002)

Working in the industry as I do :wink: I think that we are going to see Interest Only mortgages being the next endownment for complaints. If prices soften, back comes negative equity, people on I/O mortgages will have no way of reducing their monthly payments unlike C/R mortgages. Then will follow the whingers "but my IFA told me to tell him that I earn more than I do, can I have my money back please?"
Biggest scare is buy to let "experts" flooding the market but telling me that a rise is ok because their mortgage is only 75%. So where did you get your deposit to buy this place then. Oh I remortgaged my main residence. That'll be a 100% mortgage effectively then...Cue worried look on investor's face!
I think, based on my knowledge  that prices will not crash, rather increase at a decreasing rate. Although it all gets a bit scary when my father in law talks about 19% rates in the late 80s on a business park that he owns that was empty. Makes you think a bit.

But ultimately, bring on rises, more people will rent and our lettings business will improve! Selfish I know but........


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> Actually it's about using the interst rates and money supply to control inflation _or_ stimulate (reflate?) the economy as deemed appropriate. Inflation is the norm though.


True, but the assumption is that growth is a derivative of inflation (and therefore interest rates). Not disagreeing with you, just enjoying prolonging the chat :wink:



> But without getting into the Keynsian discussion about interest rates (as well as money supply) being the key inflationary control of the BOE


Keynesian? Keynes was the opposite of a monetarist who believed the way to manage the economy is through fiscal policy and demand managment i.e. adjust taxes to put money in peoples pockets. A fine policy to follow if you don't mind returning to boom and bust (usually around election time :wink: )



> by no strange coincidence, it is _always_ to the banks profit advantage each time the BOE uses it's interest rate control instrument to curb inflation (or accelerate growth), so the two are inextricably linked.


This is true as the banks are very quick to pass on rate hikes, very slow to filter down the rate cuts, but show me an industry where this doesn't happen? Oil companies are always quick to stick up the pump prices when crude prices rise, but slow on the way back down. BA just put a fuel surcharge on their flights, but I'll wager it stays there permanently.



> Add to that the fact that BOE is staffed by mainly ex-banking sector personnel (plus a few economists of course), and the not so subtle link between the two that I hinted at, becomes clearer.


If so, why do the BoE ever cut rates :roll:  ?


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

Steve_Mc said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > This is true as the banks are very quick to pass on rate hikes, very slow to filter down the rate cuts, but show me an industry where this doesn't happen? Oil companies are always quick to stick up the pump prices when crude prices rise, but slow on the way back down. BA just put a fuel surcharge on their flights, but I'll wager it stays there permanently.


That is why we need to act with our feet. If people boycott BA & stop flying with them, they will have to reduce their prices again.

We in Britain love to moan about things, but are rarely prepared to actually make a stand for what we believe in. If we did, things like this would happen less...


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

IanWest said:


> Working in the industry as I do :wink: I think that we are going to see Interest Only mortgages being the next endownment for complaints. If prices soften, back comes negative equity, people on I/O mortgages will have no way of reducing their monthly payments unlike C/R mortgages. Then will follow the whingers "but my IFA told me to tell him that I earn more than I do, can I have my money back please?"
> Biggest scare is buy to let "experts" flooding the market but telling me that a rise is ok because their mortgage is only 75%. So where did you get your deposit to buy this place then. Oh I remortgaged my main residence. That'll be a 100% mortgage effectively then...Cue worried look on investor's face!
> I think, based on my knowledge  that prices will not crash, rather increase at a decreasing rate. Although it all gets a bit scary when my father in law talks about 19% rates in the late 80s on a business park that he owns that was empty. Makes you think a bit.
> 
> But ultimately, bring on rises, more people will rent and our lettings business will improve! Selfish I know but........


Absolutely agree with you. I actually want interest rates to go up, up and up  . Because we have a small mortgage left on our property which we have made a substantial amount on and have an offset mortgage also. If house prices fall then my husband and I will be laughing 

People in our position will benefit as selfish as it seems!


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

^Abi^ said:


> IanWest said:
> 
> 
> > Working in the industry as I do :wink: I think that we are going to see Interest Only mortgages being the next endownment for complaints. If prices soften, back comes negative equity, people on I/O mortgages will have no way of reducing their monthly payments unlike C/R mortgages. Then will follow the whingers "but my IFA told me to tell him that I earn more than I do, can I have my money back please?"
> ...


I'm not quite sure I understand the logic. If house prices fall (and you own property) you'll lose money - relative to someone who doesn't own property at all. Not really a situation to laugh about, unless setting fire to banknotes is something you do for fun?


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

jampott said:


> ^Abi^ said:
> 
> 
> > IanWest said:
> ...


No because the price we bought our house for back in the early 90s I am confident will not go below that. Pro-rata will offset the remainder of our current out-standing mortgage which wil leave it zero balance.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

^Abi^ said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > ^Abi^ said:
> ...


No, but it'll go lower than it currently is, therefore you will lose money. QED.

The only people laughing when the house prices start falling are those who aren't currently on the ladder - or those prepared to jump OFF the ladder, wait for the crash / market to bottom out, then jump back on again - owning a bigger / better house for the same money they had their previous house for.

Not going into negative equity is something to be thankful for - sure. And if all properties go down by the same amount, you're better off (in absolute terms) than those ABOVE you on the ladder... but losing money is still losing money.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Yep!


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Steve_Mc said:


> > But without getting into the Keynsian discussion about interest rates (as well as money supply) being the key inflationary control of the BOE
> 
> 
> Keynesian? Keynes was the opposite of a monetarist who believed the way to manage the economy is through fiscal policy and demand managment i.e. adjust taxes to put money in peoples pockets. A fine policy to follow if you don't mind returning to boom and bust (usually around election time :wink: )
> ...


If so, why do the BoE ever cut rates :roll:
[/quote]

Well you know the answers as well as I do:
1. sometimes it is necessary to encourage growth/investment and the entrepreneur factor, plus other times for political expedience with the electorate, such as in an election year.
2. the existence of cheaper rates from foreign markets means they _have _to remain sort of competitive ie relatively cheap enough to stop johnny foreigner getting too many investment inroads to our markets.

Would they ever reduce without international competition? We will never know. :wink:


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

Tim - I would like prices to fall (although I wouldn't really like them to crash for the sake of the economy in general) but I don't fall into either of the categories you mention. I own a house in London which I bought in 1996 and on paper I have made a lot from it. However, I now want to move to a bigger house and whereas 5 years ago an extra couple of bedrooms cost me Â£20K, now that extra space costs another Â£200K+. Therefore, anybody who is moving upmarket (as people tend to do unless they are retiring) will gain from a slight fall in house prices.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

raven said:


> Tim - I would like prices to fall (although I wouldn't really like them to crash for the sake of the economy in general) but I don't fall into either of the categories you mention. I own a house in London which I bought in 1996 and on paper I have made a lot from it. However, I now want to move to a bigger house and whereas 5 years ago an extra couple of bedrooms cost me Â£20K, now that extra space costs another Â£200K+. Therefore, anybody who is moving upmarket (as people tend to do unless they are retiring) will gain from a slight fall in house prices.


The last paragraph of my last post says precisely that. You lose relatively "less" that those above you....


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

They used to say 'Fortune favours the brave.'

They should actually say 'Fortune favours those with equity.' :wink:

For those younger posters disheartened with the difficulty of getting on the property ladder, you should remember that it was not so many years ago that a 30% deposit was necessary before any lender would advance some dosh to a first time buyer toget on the ladder.

You were lucky etc... :wink:


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> Would they ever reduce without international competition? We will never know. :wink:


A very good question. It's the globalisation of markets, and thus capital, that has made monetarism the sharp tool it is today. If money wasn't so free to move, then changing the price of it would have no effect on the real economy. Moving to monetarism (Thatcher / Walters) and making the BoE independent (Blair / Brown) has enabled the UK to join the "low inflation, low interest rates" party. Forward thinking that benefited the country - now, who still wants Europe to fuck off and buy their fruit and veg in pounds 'n' ounces :roll: :wink:


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> raven said:
> 
> 
> > Tim - I would like prices to fall (although I wouldn't really like them to crash for the sake of the economy in general) but I don't fall into either of the categories you mention. I own a house in London which I bought in 1996 and on paper I have made a lot from it. However, I now want to move to a bigger house and whereas 5 years ago an extra couple of bedrooms cost me Â£20K, now that extra space costs another Â£200K+. Therefore, anybody who is moving upmarket (as people tend to do unless they are retiring) will gain from a slight fall in house prices.
> ...


Yeah, sorry must have missed that. Okay, but you're not "losing" money is my point....


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

But unless you buy and sell at JUST the right time, you'll end up owning a bigger (more expensive) house that is STILL "losing money".

You really only want to upgrade on the upward slope of the price cycle. Or (if you are lucky) right at the very bottom.

So what you ACTUALLY want is for prices to lower (just for you) then start rising again...


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

The only money you loose is the bit in equity. But what you loose in equity you purchase at the same percentage of loss anyway!


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> But unless you buy and sell at JUST the right time, you'll end up owning a bigger (more expensive) house that is STILL "losing money".
> 
> You really only want to upgrade on the upward slope of the price cycle. Or (if you are lucky) right at the very bottom.
> 
> So what you ACTUALLY want is for prices to lower (just for you) then start rising again...


The best thing is not to think of property as an investment. If you move to a house that you are happy with, and you can afford the mortgage payments, then fine. Chances are, if you are planning on being there for a number of years, any short term price volatility will have been ironed out (most likely in your favour) over the longer term.

Let's say the best option for everyone is a decrease in the *rise* of house prices rather than a fall in prices per se.


----------



## andy761 (Jul 27, 2003)

The only way forward i see is for prices to drop. First time buyers cannot afford these prices. I earn a modest wage, 22k. Most people i know earn similar or less....... you tell me how people can keep affording rises in house prices?? Its got to come to ahead sometime


----------



## marksovereign (Sep 20, 2003)

Couple of points here!
BOE Base Rate is a purely political measure of Money Costs. It bears absolutely no correlation to the wholesale Money Markets ie where the Funders obtain their Swaps. BOE interest rate rises are usually used as a political tool to flag the governments measure of the economy and its direction - the only way interest rates are going for the forseeable future is up - The government is trying to cool off the housing market , because allthough the UK Economy is currently growing , its is on the back of Retail Sales, funded by Credit Cards and the 'equity' in peoples property.

Theres a few comments from our Younger members about the difficulty of getting on the housing ladder - all these members I assume are TT owners , and how lucky we oldies are about being on the ladder. All I will say( and play Devils advocate) is that to get on the property ladder just maybe you might be as well ditching the TT which costs what Â£15 to Â£30k and the associated cost which are horrendous when you are below 30 -35 and use that money as a deposit on property.

I'm 41 and have been through the 80s and 90s and 19% interest rates and having a house for 10 years which I sold for the same amount as I bought , and If you want to get on the ladder youve got to make sacrifices and I'll tell you that owning your first house is far better than owning a TT , that can come later ( I bought my first TT age 40!!) The attitudes displayed are typical of whats driving the market to overheat - a rampant buy to let market thats failing encouraging people who have no idea about property development to drive market prices up and the attitude that you can have your cake and eat it and fund it all on the back of the equity in your property, the car, the house, the plasma screen etc etc Yes you can have it if you want rampant inflation - and then what do we get - 19% interest rates again, no thankyou been there seen it got the tee shirt and the 5 years it took to sort my finances out again.

Moral is , sort your priorities out - if you want a house buy one but dont whinge that you cant buy a TT as well !! If we go down the route of easy credit again its hyper inflation and then you will be able to whinge about BOE base rates - but the thing is you will have been the cause. !!!!!


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Also those with high mortgages already and stretching themselves even more to the hilt to this day, will see a significant difference next year if interest rates are to go up as predicted! And I'm talking when you borrow hundreds of thousands to borrow against a property and you don't have enough disposable to cover the difference for these eventualities.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

marksovereign said:


> Couple of points here!
> BOE Base Rate is a purely political measure of Money Costs. It bears absolutely no correlation to the wholesale Money Markets ie where the Funders obtain their Swaps. BOE interest rate rises are usually used as a political tool to flag the governments measure of the economy and its direction - the only way interest rates are going for the forseeable future is up - The government is trying to cool off the housing market , because allthough the UK Economy is currently growing , its is on the back of Retail Sales, funded by Credit Cards and the 'equity' in peoples property.
> 
> Theres a few comments from our Younger members about the difficulty of getting on the housing ladder - all these members I assume are TT owners , and how lucky we oldies are about being on the ladder. All I will say( and play Devils advocate) is that to get on the property ladder just maybe you might be as well ditching the TT which costs what Â£15 to Â£30k and the associated cost which are horrendous when you are below 30 -35 and use that money as a deposit on property.
> ...


Well put and well said


----------



## marksovereign (Sep 20, 2003)

Why Thank You Abi


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

marksovereign said:


> BOE Base Rate is a purely political measure of Money Costs. It bears absolutely no correlation to the wholesale Money Markets ie where the Funders obtain their Swaps. BOE interest rate rises are usually used as a political tool to flag the governments measure of the economy and its direction


Eh? The base rate is the rate at which the BoE supplies liquidity to the Â£ wholesale money markets on a daily basis, thereby directly related to funding costs of any bank operating in Â£. Are you familiar with the Bank's Open Market Operations, or were you just repeating what you heard down the pub ? :wink:


----------



## marksovereign (Sep 20, 2003)

Excuse me! - the Bank of England does not supply liquidity to any one !- the wholesale swap markets do - so get you facts correct before you pull me up :x


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

marksovereign said:


> Excuse me! - the Bank of England does not supply liquidity to any one !- the wholesale swap markets do - so get you facts correct before you pull me up :x


Of course it does, my facts are very straight thanks  If you don't believe me, how about believing the Bank themselves

Awaiting apology...... :roll: :wink:


----------



## marksovereign (Sep 20, 2003)

Ok Steve if I take the official Bof E line yes you are totally correct  . My point is that the BOE does not set the rates, but provides the market to allow market forces to set them. As you are aware Base rate bears no relation to the actual rates that the Lenders pay to obtain their funding hence tro constant state of flux in mortgage offers etc. To give you an example im currently paying 5 .19% for my 5 year money ( im in asset finance)and the trend is upward. In the context of this thread - it is not the BOE who set Mortgage rates but the Lenders who are using money obtained from the BOE wholesale money market.


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

so.

There is a correlation between BoE rates and mortgage (and other 'credit') rates - just not a *direct* correlation....

Veering back off topic (or on topic if the thread has veered that way by now )

House prices:
When we bought our current house, nearly 2 years ago (for Â£145K), it was at about the top of where we could semi-comfortably afford the mortgage.

ie - not stretching ourselves tooooo much.

Since then, our house has risen in value by just over Â£100K (nearby neighbour in identical house sold for Â£260K last month).

Nice 

Sort of :?

IF we were looking to move to a house 'up', they have risen in price by over Â£120K.... (On top of what the extra was 2 years ago).

So (in paper money terms), we're Â£20K worse off.

Fine if you are selling up to move into a tent - but otherwise?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> If prices soften, back comes negative equity, people on I/O mortgages will have no way of reducing their monthly payments unlike C/R mortgages.


If people take I/O mortgages, they deserve to suffer...I can't believe that they still take this option.


----------



## SteveS (Oct 20, 2003)

vlastan said:


> > If prices soften, back comes negative equity, people on I/O mortgages will have no way of reducing their monthly payments unlike C/R mortgages.
> 
> 
> If people take I/O mortgages, they deserve to suffer...I can't believe that they still take this option.


In your view. And if said people are financially irresponsible (or simply naive) you are probably correct.

In my view however, given the way that the endowments market for example has been mis-handled, our investments thus far (and I'm going back a bit here) are better handled by ourselves and without the lunatic commissions on top. 
I/O is the one way to handle your mortgage that allows you to make your surplus money work for you on your own terms. With a reasonable amount of financial responsibility I/O is probably the cheapest way to pay off a mortgage over 25 years. However I agree that if you can't deal with your own finances responsibly (and there are many that can't) a repayment mortgage is invaluable.

IMO both repayment and endowment mortgages are simply a way for the banks to make yet more money from the "risk aversion" of the general populace. This doesn't make your decision a bad one but on the whole they wouldn't press either repayment or endowment options unless it made even more money for them than interest only.


----------



## IanWest (May 7, 2002)

vlastan said:


> > If prices soften, back comes negative equity, people on I/O mortgages will have no way of reducing their monthly payments unlike C/R mortgages.
> 
> 
> If people take I/O mortgages, they deserve to suffer...I can't believe that they still take this option.


V- that wasn't my point. However, disagree with you on that point. The majority of my buy to lets are I/O as I use the surplus as a deposit on another one. Obviously long term, I will change to repayment when I stop buying but until then, it works well.


----------

