Reads like: "I made poor decisions, over leveraged myself, and then I lost everything... Now I expect others to take the fall."
Lesson learned.
Be super careful who you open contracts with. Marriages are a coin toss. Would you put your total financial health up to a coin toss? Similar point about how much cashflow requirements you take on. (Can you pay the mortgage on your own? Are you ready to take on roommate(s) to fill your ex's place?)
remainder from the article showing this guy just failed to do the right thing:
> "I can imagine that customers are really worried and distressed if they're facing financial difficulty, but they don't have to go through it alone," Ms Hutchins said.
> "The earlier they get in touch with their mortgage lender, the more support and help that that lender can give them and the more likelihood they have of getting back up to date with their mortgage."
> Options offered by lenders, she said, included reduced mortgage payments to allow time to get back on track, budgeting and other tools to understand "their full financial situation" and advice about debt charities and support organisations.
Why not? You can lease a car. IMO an interest-only mortgage is basically renting with upside to the equity, which is something the US seems to be very keen on getting everyone to have some skin in the realestate game. I'm not really into governments being paternalistic so I'd rather see people be allowed to choose poorly, but they also need to be able to suffer at least some consequences.
> remainder from the article showing this guy just failed to do the right thing:
Huh? That's a quote from a banking spokesperson. It's not even related to any of the (several) stories in the article - it's a quote she gave to the BBC.
Assuming that by "this guy" you mean the first guy mentioned in the article, he had an interest-only mortgage. So sure, he was overextended, but exactly how much accommodation do you think he was going to get? The second guy did have an accommodation with his bank (also on an interest-only mortgage), and it is... he'll be repossessed if he goes more than eight thousand pounds into arrears.
The first guy seems to have a legitimate grievance. He wasn't allowed to sell the home to cover the mortgage. Here's the way the article actually ends:
> As for Mr Da Costa Diogo, his bank has repossessed the property.
> In the same month it was repossessed, the BBC saw a similar three-bedroom property in the same Thetford street as Mr Da Costa Diogo's on the market for £160,000 - almost double the amount he owed.
What are you talking about? The better outcome that he should have gotten is that he sells the house, covers the mortgage, gives up half the profit to his estranged wife, and still has forty thousand pounds left over.
Seems like there must be a way to get his ex-wife taken off the mortgage if she’s actually abandoned the property and moved across the world. I can imagine it might be a tricky thing to navigate though.
I would like to see the law changed so secured debt (eg. Mortgages) do not become regular debts after the security is sold off.
Ie. You should be able to hand the keys to a mortgage company and walk away debt free.
Likewise you should be able to return the car keys to a loan company and walk away debt free.
Sure, it would mean loans would have to have slightly higher fees to cover the increased risk, but as a nation I think it would be worth it for the productivity gains of not having so many of the population in court over debts.
If you can't pay, there is already bankruptcy for that. Nothing else is needed really. You can't expect to walk away from a loan with zero hit to your credit.
Also, it is really hard to sympathize with people walking away from huge loans for which they put down nearly nothing. The way things are today, you could severely overpay for a house with a loan that you put almost nothing down for, then walk away when the market crashes. That is not the kind of behavior that should be incentivized. As if that isn't bad enough, the very low down payments allow people to qualify for higher loan amounts, which drives up housing prices.
In New Zealand, you can (effectively) force the co-owner of a property to sell or buy you out. The laws allowing this were introduced decades ago to prevent one person in a couple holding the family home 'hostage' (typically, a husband forcing the wife to stay in a failed relationship because she needed a home to raise the kids). A very sensible set of laws I think (someone please feel free to correct/link this property - I can't find a good summary online, although I can find lots of pages that talk about it).
Is this not the case in the UK, or did the first guy in the article forgo that option?
Interests should be banned, it should be illegal to benefit or have a profit from lending money, they are the only thing banks are after with their infinite money creation trick (aka loans), and also they are the cancer that eats the economy from within and inflate everything up. This should be followed by abandoning the perpetual rent (aka property taxes) that if you don’t pay you lose your “own” house.
If there was no profit in lending money, then nobody would do it. There really isn't anything wrong with a responsible amount of lending at a reasonable cost. That cost should ultimately be determined by market forces, physical constraints, and statistics.
Reads like: "I made poor decisions, over leveraged myself, and then I lost everything... Now I expect others to take the fall."
Lesson learned.
Be super careful who you open contracts with. Marriages are a coin toss. Would you put your total financial health up to a coin toss? Similar point about how much cashflow requirements you take on. (Can you pay the mortgage on your own? Are you ready to take on roommate(s) to fill your ex's place?)
remainder from the article showing this guy just failed to do the right thing:
> "I can imagine that customers are really worried and distressed if they're facing financial difficulty, but they don't have to go through it alone," Ms Hutchins said.
> "The earlier they get in touch with their mortgage lender, the more support and help that that lender can give them and the more likelihood they have of getting back up to date with their mortgage."
> Options offered by lenders, she said, included reduced mortgage payments to allow time to get back on track, budgeting and other tools to understand "their full financial situation" and advice about debt charities and support organisations.
> Reads like: "I made poor decisions, over leveraged myself, and then I lost everything... Now I expect others to take the fall."
Interest-only mortgages shouldn't exist. They are predatory and the people that take them just don't have the discernment to make that decision.
(I'm honestly surprised that they exist at the UK.)
Why not? You can lease a car. IMO an interest-only mortgage is basically renting with upside to the equity, which is something the US seems to be very keen on getting everyone to have some skin in the realestate game. I'm not really into governments being paternalistic so I'd rather see people be allowed to choose poorly, but they also need to be able to suffer at least some consequences.
can you leave the keys to the house after my interest-only loan expires in 3 years? :)
> remainder from the article showing this guy just failed to do the right thing:
Huh? That's a quote from a banking spokesperson. It's not even related to any of the (several) stories in the article - it's a quote she gave to the BBC.
Assuming that by "this guy" you mean the first guy mentioned in the article, he had an interest-only mortgage. So sure, he was overextended, but exactly how much accommodation do you think he was going to get? The second guy did have an accommodation with his bank (also on an interest-only mortgage), and it is... he'll be repossessed if he goes more than eight thousand pounds into arrears.
The first guy seems to have a legitimate grievance. He wasn't allowed to sell the home to cover the mortgage. Here's the way the article actually ends:
> As for Mr Da Costa Diogo, his bank has repossessed the property.
> In the same month it was repossessed, the BBC saw a similar three-bedroom property in the same Thetford street as Mr Da Costa Diogo's on the market for £160,000 - almost double the amount he owed.
All of them seem to view the repossession as the worst thing that could possibly happen.
Though if the repossession covers the remainder of the loan it's really not, they are going to be free of debt again.
Their credit score is going to take a hit which will make renting harder, but not impossible.
The first guy for example couldn't possibly hope to get a better outcome. He is no longer paying a mortgage on his ex-wife's house.
What are you talking about? The better outcome that he should have gotten is that he sells the house, covers the mortgage, gives up half the profit to his estranged wife, and still has forty thousand pounds left over.
Seems like there must be a way to get his ex-wife taken off the mortgage if she’s actually abandoned the property and moved across the world. I can imagine it might be a tricky thing to navigate though.
I would like to see the law changed so secured debt (eg. Mortgages) do not become regular debts after the security is sold off.
Ie. You should be able to hand the keys to a mortgage company and walk away debt free.
Likewise you should be able to return the car keys to a loan company and walk away debt free.
Sure, it would mean loans would have to have slightly higher fees to cover the increased risk, but as a nation I think it would be worth it for the productivity gains of not having so many of the population in court over debts.
If you can't pay, there is already bankruptcy for that. Nothing else is needed really. You can't expect to walk away from a loan with zero hit to your credit.
Also, it is really hard to sympathize with people walking away from huge loans for which they put down nearly nothing. The way things are today, you could severely overpay for a house with a loan that you put almost nothing down for, then walk away when the market crashes. That is not the kind of behavior that should be incentivized. As if that isn't bad enough, the very low down payments allow people to qualify for higher loan amounts, which drives up housing prices.
> You should be able to hand the keys to a mortgage company and walk away debt free.
That's already the case in the US for original mortgages. If you refinance your mortgage, you generally lose that benefit.
In New Zealand, you can (effectively) force the co-owner of a property to sell or buy you out. The laws allowing this were introduced decades ago to prevent one person in a couple holding the family home 'hostage' (typically, a husband forcing the wife to stay in a failed relationship because she needed a home to raise the kids). A very sensible set of laws I think (someone please feel free to correct/link this property - I can't find a good summary online, although I can find lots of pages that talk about it).
Is this not the case in the UK, or did the first guy in the article forgo that option?
Interests should be banned, it should be illegal to benefit or have a profit from lending money, they are the only thing banks are after with their infinite money creation trick (aka loans), and also they are the cancer that eats the economy from within and inflate everything up. This should be followed by abandoning the perpetual rent (aka property taxes) that if you don’t pay you lose your “own” house.
If there was no profit in lending money, then nobody would do it. There really isn't anything wrong with a responsible amount of lending at a reasonable cost. That cost should ultimately be determined by market forces, physical constraints, and statistics.