Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

I just had an image of T May dressed in a mini skirt and a low cut blouse serving drinks at cabinet and N10.

I won't be able to sleep to-night thinking about it.

No wonder your thoughts and dreams are toxic Fred1, if that's what keeps you awake, and turned on but Hey Ho it take all sorts, that would prefer T May dressed to kill, rather than the young ladies that offered their services and were well rewarded for them. As reported some had done it before and enjoyed it, why the others stayed and just did not get up and leave beats me.

Surely they were not all blonde bimbo`s that had no idea what was likely to happen, the moment they were asked to sign a NDA.

If these woman are not careful, men will just let them get on with it, and buy more robots /sex dolls.

Well you do seem to go a bit queasy over any CON out there , Boris obsession went on for ages now T May , does your wife know about this Freda . Nige not out the question next i suppose .

Victim, Are you suggesting that Freda is a swinger, following the change of focus from Boris to May? :-)

No i think he basically fancies Cons IN A STRANGE way , never stops going on about them , it's smoke and mirrors Clock . Nige is half con really and gets a lot of secret admiration from him .

or perhaps this.

See what i mean .

Nice speech from thingeye at the wotsit, eh?

Trump's full closing speech at Davos

The FCA are saying that borrowers are ignoring a mortgage timebomb with over 17% of all mortgages being on an interest only basis. The FCA ignore insider dealing, fraud, and give a pat on the back to the leaders of big banks and accountancy firms, pension funds etc, that act with immunity against the average family person that have little choice but get stuffed by these institutional giants.

Surely it is the homeowner that should take responsibility if a mortgage has been taken out on an interest only basis and the mortgage has not been progressively paid down. Why are the banks or building societies to blame? Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Surely, it would only be 'a daft lender' who doesn't ask questions to the borrower about how the mortgage is eventually going to be settled? And if his curiosity isn't happily satisfied, then he isn't going to lend, don'tchafink?

Most were supposed to be covered by endowment policies Exec but most policies haven't performed as predicted at the time. Also , once you got the mortgage there was nothing stopping you cancelling the policy.

Dil, you were supposed to provide proof upon request, that the policies remained in place but of course it was common knowledge that they never would ask to see this proof once they had given the mortgage.

Most of these mortgages will be paid off when the owners sell and take profits before the day of reckoning, so I have no idea why anyone would be alarmed. It was always a method of living in a better home than you could afford if you had a capitol repayment mortgage, and one which leaves you more likely to have gained a much better profit upon, if you see before property prices fall.

You're ignoring inflation. If a lender loans £300k on a £400k property over 20 years representing 75% of the purchase price, then allowing for 3% annual inflation, that £400k property will be worth over £700k 20 years out, and over £2.5m at a more realistic 10% level of annual house price inflation.

As each year passes, the lender's risk of failing to make a debt recovery lessens in the event of a default. And at the end of the term, the buyer will easily be able to roll over the loan for a further few years (assuming he's still in work), or use the equity released from a sale to downsize. It's a win-win.

that assumes that you bought in the right place and at the right price in the first place
there's many examples of negative equity to disprove your cosy theory

Not over a 20 or 25 year term there aren't

Nothing to see here.

I just wanted post 80000 :-)

My first mortgage I had no deposit and borrowed 100% of the value of the house plus another 25% for improvements. My 5% deposit was deducted from the 25% that was for improvements which was retained by the lender until the work was completed.

In short I bought a house with no deposit and 120% mortgage ... try doing that these days.

If the time comes when the mortgage taker cannot pay, and home prices have dropped below the mortgage value, those that gave the loans will be carrying those loans with far greater than 120% mortgages - In effect another sub-prime market, as property is overvalued, in much the same way as commercial bricks have become of late in many towns.

As hils pointed out earlier , over any 20 to 25 year period it's almost impossible to have negative equity.

That first house I bought was worth about 7x the 120% mortgage after 20 years. It was not bought in a boom or trough year.