"Its different this time". They said the same before and during the last crash.

you don't know enuf english 'law' nor do you understand the costs of chasing chavs....

Put it another way.

Why would the lender want to lend you the money, rather than keep it under his mattress?

*whoosh*

Nothing I wrote had anything to do with predictions, or criticising people for not predicting the future.

Doug commented that people owning an expensive rabbit hutch which isn't really worth the 500k its valued at may realise that property ownership is not automatically a Good Thing.

You retorted that if they bought it for 200k and its now worth 400k then "they wont be realising that".

My point was if it had been worth 500k last year, then they might be realising that property ownership wasn't a Good Thing in the previous year.

Geddit?

just so... however, there are possible scenarios.... parcelling out loans to a few trusted people who prefer to hold or use cash now....(probably safer than mattresses for various possible reasons....)

of course because you holding money would gain say x%... another person may be able to trade the same money and make x+n%....and therefore be prepared to give you n-m%... consider eg a person wishing to trade in the 'black'(free) market or a dangerous (perhaps 'illegal') venture...

interest/inflation/deflation (as a unit) is only part of trading conditions...

as you will realise national banks who are in a mess are liable to arbitrary actions...eg demonetising whet you have under the mattress or other means of theft...

regards...

"Crowley" wrote

That's funny - you start off this thread with a subject "Its different this time.." -- suggesting that "now" is *not* different. Now you are saying that "now" *is* different....

Tee hee!

Pay attention !

"The last time" refers to the last house price crash which lasted from

1989 to 1995. It was you who brought up 2000 for some reason.

Try to keep up. there's a good lad.

Tee hee !

Are you really that clueless? Repossessions of homes by mortgage lenders this year alone is likely to reach 10,000.

so what? your own item states "However, repossessions are still set to be much lower than the long-term average of 30,000, or the peak of 70,000 a year recorded during the early

1990s property market crash." ... it also claims "It does not automatically follow that repossession orders, as recorded by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, result in actual repossession.

Generally, the number of court repossession orders is far higher than actual repossessions..."

note 'far higher'

what exactly is your point...if any?

get hold of the number for the number of mortgages existing at this time...then work out what proportion of households are involved even with this dance... your item suggests the present level of repos is 2/3rd of the average rate... it also refers to a recent bank rate cut despite the lower than ave rate....

in these situations:- what do you suppose the courts actually do? what do you suppose the building societies do? what do you suppose the recalcitrant debtors do?

there is just so much you don't understand....

do you suppose lender want to do repos? do you imagine they like repo'd borrowers going round bad-mouthing them... it is just a distant threat to most people...and a hovering threat to keep the sheep in line....

how many people (proportion) don't pay tv licences or motor charges....and then how many are actually charged...and then how many get a serious penalty....

what do you suppose happens to any who are repo'd? do you suppose they end up sleeping on the park benches?

work out what the reality for the loaner and the defaulter are in the real world....

please do some thinking or researching before posturing.

So repossessions are lower than they were, what's your point? Interest rates are nowhere near as high as they were in the 1990's so not as many people are getting into financial difficulties as then. It doesn't mean lenders are less likely to repossess if the mortgage isn't paid.

The 10,000 I quoted was the predicted figure for *actual* repossessions this year, not repossession orders.

Er, yes, repossession orders this year is far higher than 10,000. It was 20,000 in the last *3 months* in England and Wales.

As it states:

"Generally, the number of court repossession orders is far higher than actual repossessions because often the borrower agrees to pay or a deal is made so the order is not enforced. "

The repossession order is a threat to repossess. This usually persuades people to work out a deal. If they don't the house is reposessed.

Do you want me to repeat what I wrote earlier? OK:

If you take out a mortgage, and refuse to pay the interest/loan repayments demanded by the lender, and refuse to negotiate with them, they will take possession of the house, sell it, and chase you for the rest of the debt if there is any.

My point is that your statement:

"no use lenders 'demanding' repayments if the borrower cannot (or will not) pay."

is complete bullshit. Try telling that to the 4,640 people whose homes *were* repossessed in the first half of this year.

In message , Andy Pandy writes

Which will be the third lowest since 1984 and as a percentage of all mortgages outstanding is the third lowest since 1981.

i am not chasing you down every rabbit hole...

your stt was as follows... "What are you on about? If you take out a mortgage, and refuse to pay the interest/loan repayments demanded by the lender, and refuse to negotiate with them, they will take possession of the house, sell it, and chase you for the rest of the debt if there is any."

your stt was highly naive.... i have given you enuf data for you to start to work out why your comment was naive....

that is a threat...in reality it is not what usually happens.... you cannot extract blood out of a stone.... most such supposed debts are written off....

those who don't pay up do not normally end up under hedges.. they live in other houses/accomodation....

i note you have not made any effort to work out what a tiny proportion of all mortgages that represents.... go peddle your victim psychology where it will be appreciated...

i do not suffer fools gladly....i do not waste time on arrogance or on the culpably lazy-minded....

go pose elsewhere or make some effort to learn.... or you will get ignored...

"Crowley" wrote

So - you are saying that "now" (2005) is similar to "1989 to 1995" but different from 2000?! We start off "one way" (1989-95), change to a "different way" (2000), then change back again (2005).

And your reasons for 2000 being different, even though earlier & later are the same, are....?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

If they ignored the (unrealistic) 500K figure, and just considered a

*realistic* valuation, then what?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

That's true **only if** they bought in the previous year at 500K; but the person being considered didn't, they paid 200K a while earlier...

You seem to be going round in circles and becoming increasingly fuddled.

Let me repeat an earlier post in which I tried to explain why 2000 was 'different' to 2005 :

"The year 2000 was a 'different world' (***TO 2005****) as I'm sure you know.

That was before the recent 3/4 year spending spree (both public and Government) which has left the UK with 1.3 trillion pounds (and rising)

in consumer debt, 66% rise in repossessions, first-time-buyers down to

9% (from an historical average of around 40%), rising bankruptcies, a recession in the retail sector, record trade deficit, a 10 billion pounds hole in the public finances which will require extensive tax rises, sterling significantly down against the dollar etc. " end quote

The similiarities I am drawing are between the situation in 1989 (start of last crash) and now in 2005 (it was you who threw 2000 into the discussion)

You are right. The current figure is below the historical average. However it was also below the historical average in 1989 (the start of the last house price crash) but over the following 3/4 years repos rocketed to record levels.

Our current figure for repos shows an increase of 66% from last year and this together with record levels of debt indicates that they may be dramatically on the up again.

IMO the 'bust' has barely got started yet. Even the Governor of the Bank of England in a recent speech said in his understated way that "we have had 10 nice years and the next 10 are not going to be nice".

"Crowley" wrote

No need - please just simply explain why you think 2005 must be so close to

1989-95, even though it is so different from 2000 (which, of course, is much more recent than 1989!).

"Crowley" wrote

I know! The fact of the matter is, that the situation in 1989 was even more different to 2005 than 2000 was!

"Crowley" wrote

... just to show how your argument is flawed.

16 years ago (1989) the world was a much different place to what it is now (2005).

"Crowley" wrote

John's quote above suggests that it was also "below the historical average" in 1984. Just look what happened in the following 5 years as house prices rocketed upwards!

You are just "cherry-picking" your historical quotes to suit your point-of-view. Shame on you!

The fact that 2000 was 'more recent' is irrevelant in terms of economic cycles. IMO with regard to the housing market 1989 and 2005 are similiar in that they were/are both top or near the top of the house market cycle. 2000 was totally different as it was barely half-way through the up cycle.

You do realise the cyclical nature of the economy I assume ?

Not in terms of the housing market.

In many respects it was but not with regard to the stage the housing market is now at which is what we are discussing here (aren't we ?)

I've yet to meet anybody who doesn't indulge in a bit of 'cherry-picking' to back up their POV now and again ;-) but I'm hardly surprised to hear repos were low in 1984 wasn't the economy starting to boom again after a pretty severe recession particularly in manufacturing in 81/82 ?

It all ended in tears in 89/90.