3 Responses to 'Confidence is Building in the UK Property Market'
Subscribe to comments with RSS
or TrackBack to 'Confidence is Building in the UK Property Market'.
would the subprime crisis happen if property supply did not grow so fast or high? so subprime was doing well and houses were built, right?
and then interest ates went up for monthly payments or something along the lines, and basically the monthly payments shot up. that and other things eventually led many subprime borrowers to stop their payments and foreclose their houses?
so investors thought property values always rise. subprimes were traded on the market. but the value of the houses went down because too many houses, too many foreclosures, and houses lost value as compared to initial valuation. its stocks are perceived to be worth less. confidence goes down and people sell sell sell. yes?
well, i don’t understand why sell sell sell would lead a company to collapse, but that’s a different question. if it does, then my question is, would the subprime still happen if the houses taken back by the lending institutions did not lose value? if the initial loan was $100,000, and thus far the borrower has returned $10,000 (whether into principal or interest), and then he defaults and the lending institution takes the house and finds the house is worth $90,000 and manages to sell it at that price, then what is the problem other than no profit being made?
i don’t quite understand.
if the subprime practise had gone on as it did, even with loans being given to people to default years later, but if property prices did not fall but at least grew with the rate of inflation, would a crisis have occured? perhaps, i am not sure why the crisis occured. my understanding so far is that 1) subprime loans resulted in a lot of defaults, 2) property prices dropped, 3) people lose confidence.
but if number 2 did not happen, would the whole chain of events not occur? (sure another crisis of another kind might have happened later, but is today’s crisis caused by number 2?)
the lending institution would take back the house and even without liquidating it, as long as it was not losing value, wouldn’t the investment still be safe (no loss, though not very much profitable?)
Yes. Because the SubPrime people were let into the market because Loan Originators could sell them a loan with zero documentation, then turn around and resell that loan to a Bear Stearns and recoup all their money. As such, it didn’t matter what was going on in the housing market, because the source of the problem was pretty much being able to give loans to anybody with a heartbeat, then resell the loan, and transfer all the risk to Wall Street.
If by property, you mean houses, then you are confusing cause and effect.
The junk credit market and low Fed rates were what drove housing prices upward. Once prices started to climb, then you had speculators piling on, but the bottom line is if nobody was buying the underlying bonds, then there wouldn’t have been the loans, and then there wouldn’t have been rising prices, and then builders wouldn’t be building.
In fact, that is what is happening now: there is not much junk credit available, prices are falling, speculators are defaulting, people in over their heads are defaulting, and guess what? Builders aren’t building. References :
would the subprime crisis happen if property supply did not grow so fast or high?
so subprime was doing well and houses were built, right?
and then interest ates went up for monthly payments or something along the lines, and basically the monthly payments shot up. that and other things eventually led many subprime borrowers to stop their payments and foreclose their houses?
so investors thought property values always rise. subprimes were traded on the market. but the value of the houses went down because too many houses, too many foreclosures, and houses lost value as compared to initial valuation. its stocks are perceived to be worth less. confidence goes down and people sell sell sell. yes?
well, i don’t understand why sell sell sell would lead a company to collapse, but that’s a different question. if it does, then my question is, would the subprime still happen if the houses taken back by the lending institutions did not lose value? if the initial loan was $100,000, and thus far the borrower has returned $10,000 (whether into principal or interest), and then he defaults and the lending institution takes the house and finds the house is worth $90,000 and manages to sell it at that price, then what is the problem other than no profit being made?
i don’t quite understand.
if the subprime practise had gone on as it did, even with loans being given to people to default years later, but if property prices did not fall but at least grew with the rate of inflation, would a crisis have occured? perhaps, i am not sure why the crisis occured. my understanding so far is that 1) subprime loans resulted in a lot of defaults, 2) property prices dropped, 3) people lose confidence.
but if number 2 did not happen, would the whole chain of events not occur? (sure another crisis of another kind might have happened later, but is today’s crisis caused by number 2?)
the lending institution would take back the house and even without liquidating it, as long as it was not losing value, wouldn’t the investment still be safe (no loss, though not very much profitable?)
San Fran tourist
3 Mar 10 at 6:39 pm
Yes. Because the SubPrime people were let into the market because Loan Originators could sell them a loan with zero documentation, then turn around and resell that loan to a Bear Stearns and recoup all their money. As such, it didn’t matter what was going on in the housing market, because the source of the problem was pretty much being able to give loans to anybody with a heartbeat, then resell the loan, and transfer all the risk to Wall Street.
References :
Alby
3 Mar 10 at 11:41 pm
If by property, you mean houses, then you are confusing cause and effect.
The junk credit market and low Fed rates were what drove housing prices upward. Once prices started to climb, then you had speculators piling on, but the bottom line is if nobody was buying the underlying bonds, then there wouldn’t have been the loans, and then there wouldn’t have been rising prices, and then builders wouldn’t be building.
In fact, that is what is happening now: there is not much junk credit available, prices are falling, speculators are defaulting, people in over their heads are defaulting, and guess what? Builders aren’t building.
References :
Greg
3 Mar 10 at 11:43 pm