Wednesday, 10 August 2011

I thought that was the whole point? Why are they now squealing?

From The Daily Mail:

Three quarters of home buyers are concerned about mortgage rates, fearing it would take only a small hike to send them over the edge, a new report shows.

The research by consumer watchdog Which? shows one in seven cash-strapped buyers are already struggling to make their repayments. But despite their problems only a third of people affected are approaching their lenders for help.

Options available to those with difficulties include moving from a repayment to interest-only mortgage, taking a payment holiday or allowing them to switch to a different deal...


Now, perhaps I've missed something, but isn't the whole point of Home-Owner-Ism to encourage people to borrow as much as humanly possible and beyond to keep the bankers rich and the illusion of wealth (rising house prices) going?

And if some valuer is prepared to sign off on the fact that the potential selling price of your house has gone up, isn't the correct procedure to remortgage with a bigger loan to "unlock some of the cash tied up in bricks and mortar"?

So I really don't see what the fuss is about. The whole point of Home-Owner-Ism is for every generation to enslave the next generation with even bigger debts, or failing that, for people who ought to know better to enslave themselves, so that wealth cascades UP the generations, from young to old, from productive economy to monopolists etc.

If you ask me, the system has worked a treat. Keeping people close to the verge of bankruptcy used to be something to be celebrated - that way they have to keep their noses to the grindstone - so I appear to have missed that memo as well.

See also The 830,000 homeowners stuck in a negative equity trap

7 comments:

A K Haart said...

Early in my career I was advised to mortgage myself up to the hilt. I never took the advice so now I've been able to help my son buy a house.

I don't have a huge wad stashed away in my own house, but so what? What use would that be to my family?

Mark Wadsworth said...

AKH: "I don't have a huge wad stashed away in my own house, but so what? What use would that be to my family?"

The official narrative is so that you can 'build up assets to leave something to the next generation' or 'fund your retirement' or some such nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Mind you, the payment holiday option sounds like a winner - with rolled up interest, that should do nicely.

Mark Wadsworth said...

AC, the trick is keeping as many people as close to bankruptcy as possible, but not allowing them to cross the line - because once people have nothing to lose they get a little, er, unpredictable shall we say.

Tim Almond said...

The trouble is that a lot of people are already on interest only by design. 22% of all mortgages in 1999 (and you can bet this got worse later) are interest only mortgages with no repayment vehicle.

John Pickworth said...

I'd rather interest rates did go up a little (a lot actually)... it seems rather too convenient and easy for them to be kept so low for so long. That's got to be costing us something, surely?

Mark Wadsworth said...

JT, good point, until one day everybody is on interest only.

JP, me too. Low interest rates and high inflation is a stealth tax on savings and a subsidy to mortgage borrowers and banks. It's all part of the Home-OWner-Ist plan.