Eliminating mortgage companies from counties and boroughs


7

7

Eliminating mortgage companies from counties and boroughs
---------------------------------------------------------

There is an urgent need to rethink mortgage and do
it up differently using best of tried methods such
as crowd funding, and council run banking for
the locals.

It costs very little to set up online banks using
modern technology so councils should take a more
active role in eliminating mortgate companies
from operatng within their jurisdiction.

The council may take £200 to £1000 in rates but
spend all that money for the benefit of the locals.

However the locals are having to dish out £800 to
£2000 or more in mortgages to lenders in far
away cities loafing it all up and providing ZERO benenit
to the locals after having robbed them of so much
cash flow.

It cannot go on.

Councils need to step in, ban mortage companies from
operating in their area, and siphoning off huge
quantities of cash to distant benefactors that
serve no purpose for the locals.

Central government need to ease up on these schemes as well.

Its better for large poor areas because the mortgages
are lent by the council at favourable rates to the locals
who can then have more money in their pockets to regererate
the area. Even better if council with their big budgets
took to building houses. There is very little difference
in the total cost whether you specify a five star hotel type
of building or a 3rd rate soviet style messy construction.
So you may as well spend the little extra and specify
all building be built to 5 star hotel standards,
and they will last at leat 20 years before big mainenance.
It will bring up an area in a stable and sustainable way
compared to any other hair brained alternative schemes,
and schemes as practiced today.
 
Ad

Advertisements

F

Fredxxx

Eliminating mortgage companies from counties and boroughs
---------------------------------------------------------
<snip>

Have you thought this through?

Are you suggesting that the government should prop up those who can't
afford/pay a mortgage?

Don't you think there is enough competition between mortgage companies[1]?


[1]There is now less competition through risk taking through new lending
rules imposed by government!
 
7

7

Fredxxx wrote:

Eliminating mortgage companies from counties and boroughs
---------------------------------------------------------
<snip>

Have you thought this through?

Are you suggesting that the government should prop up those who can't
afford/pay a mortgage?

Don't you think there is enough competition between mortgage companies[1]?


[1]There is now less competition through risk taking through new lending
rules imposed by government!

Meaningless.

The issue is whether local authorities should
allow mortgage companies to siphon
off a vast amount of money from an area and produce zero benefit
for that area.

They should act to stop mortgage companies
and act to set up local banks and lending
to keep the benefits of lending within the local
community where it matters most.



Eliminating mortgage companies from counties and boroughs
---------------------------------------------------------

There is an urgent need to rethink mortgage and do
it up differently using best of tried methods such
as crowd funding, and council run banking for
the locals.

It costs very little to set up online banks using
modern technology so councils should take a more
active role in eliminating mortgate companies
from operatng within their jurisdiction.

The council may take £200 to £1000 in rates but
spend all that money for the benefit of the locals.

However the locals are having to dish out £800 to
£2000 or more in mortgages to lenders in far
away cities loafing it all up and providing ZERO benenit
to the locals after having robbed them of so much
cash flow.

It cannot go on.

Councils need to step in, ban mortage companies from
operating in their area, and siphoning off huge
quantities of cash to distant benefactors that
serve no purpose for the locals.

Central government need to ease up on these schemes as well.

Its better for large poor areas because the mortgages
are lent by the council at favourable rates to the locals
who can then have more money in their pockets to regererate
the area. Even better if council with their big budgets
took to building houses. There is very little difference
in the total cost whether you specify a five star hotel type
of building or a 3rd rate soviet style messy construction.
So you may as well spend the little extra and specify
all building be built to 5 star hotel standards,
and they will last at leat 20 years before big mainenance.
It will bring up an area in a stable and sustainable way
compared to any other hair brained alternative schemes,
and schemes as practiced today.
 
F

Fredxxx

Fredxxx wrote:

Eliminating mortgage companies from counties and boroughs
---------------------------------------------------------
<snip>

Have you thought this through?

Are you suggesting that the government should prop up those who can't
afford/pay a mortgage?

Don't you think there is enough competition between mortgage companies[1]?


[1]There is now less competition through risk taking through new lending
rules imposed by government!

Meaningless.

The issue is whether local authorities should
allow mortgage companies to siphon
off a vast amount of money from an area and produce zero benefit
for that area.
Siphon money? Do you understand the concept of repayment of a loan, and
loan interest?

Both are in effect set by the government, one through controlling
housing demand and the other interest rates. There is also the addition
risk of the mortgagee defaulting.
They should act to stop mortgage companies
and act to set up local banks and lending
to keep the benefits of lending within the local
community where it matters most.
Why? Don't you want anyone to purchase a house using a loan?

Who is going to pay to setup these loss making banks? Don't tell me the
tax payer?
 
7

7

Fredxxx wrote:

Eliminating mortgage companies from counties and boroughs
---------------------------------------------------------

<snip>

Have you thought this through?

Are you suggesting that the government should prop up those who can't
afford/pay a mortgage?

Don't you think there is enough competition between mortgage
companies[1]?


[1]There is now less competition through risk taking through new lending
rules imposed by government!

Meaningless.

The issue is whether local authorities should
allow mortgage companies to siphon
off a vast amount of money from an area and produce zero benefit
for that area.
Siphon money? Do you understand the concept of repayment of a loan, and
loan interest?
Did you read the original post?

The interest siphoned off goes where exactly?

To benefit locals or to some far off places where it generates zero benefit
to locals?

Both are in effect set by the government, one through controlling
housing demand and the other interest rates. There is also the addition
risk of the mortgagee defaulting.


Why? Don't you want anyone to purchase a house using a loan?

Who is going to pay to setup these loss making banks? Don't tell me the
tax payer?

In what way is it loss making if crowd funding is being used?

The house gets repossesed and someone else moves in.
There is zero loss if the local authority funds are being
used to provide the loans and take back the interest
(to invest back in the community).
With automated systems, its about 10 minutes of
someone's time to sort out a mess.

You should read the original post again
and think only of how the money
circulates in the local economy when mortage
companies are banned from operating in an area:



Eliminating mortgage companies from counties and boroughs
---------------------------------------------------------

There is an urgent need to rethink mortgage and do
it up differently using best of tried methods such
as crowd funding, and council run banking for
the locals.

It costs very little to set up online banks using
modern technology so councils should take a more
active role in eliminating mortgate companies
from operatng within their jurisdiction.

The council may take £200 to £1000 in rates but
spend all that money for the benefit of the locals.

However the locals are having to dish out £800 to
£2000 or more in mortgages to lenders in far
away cities loafing it all up and providing ZERO benenit
to the locals after having robbed them of so much
cash flow.

It cannot go on.

Councils need to step in, ban mortage companies from
operating in their area, and siphoning off huge
quantities of cash to distant benefactors that
serve no purpose for the locals.

Central government need to ease up on these schemes as well.

Its better for large poor areas because the mortgages
are lent by the council at favourable rates to the locals
who can then have more money in their pockets to regererate
the area. Even better if council with their big budgets
took to building houses. There is very little difference
in the total cost whether you specify a five star hotel type
of building or a 3rd rate soviet style messy construction.
So you may as well spend the little extra and specify
all building be built to 5 star hotel standards,
and they will last at leat 20 years before big mainenance.
It will bring up an area in a stable and sustainable way
compared to any other hair brained alternative schemes,
and schemes as practiced today.
 
F

Fredxxx

Fredxxx wrote:

Eliminating mortgage companies from counties and boroughs
---------------------------------------------------------

<snip>

Have you thought this through?

Are you suggesting that the government should prop up those who can't
afford/pay a mortgage?

Don't you think there is enough competition between mortgage
companies[1]?


[1]There is now less competition through risk taking through new lending
rules imposed by government!


Meaningless.

The issue is whether local authorities should
allow mortgage companies to siphon
off a vast amount of money from an area and produce zero benefit
for that area.
Siphon money? Do you understand the concept of repayment of a loan, and
loan interest?
Did you read the original post?

The interest siphoned off goes where exactly?
Interest is largely set by government and risk of the borrower.
To benefit locals or to some far off places where it generates zero benefit
to locals?
When current interest rates are lower than inflation, the benefit is
below zero to investors.

Do you understand inflation?
 
7

7

Fredxxx said:
Interest is largely set by government and risk of the borrower.
And then more is added on top by the mortgage companies.
Read the original post and explain who collects
the interest and who loafs it all up with zero benefit
to the local infrastracture.


Eliminating mortgage companies from counties and boroughs
---------------------------------------------------------

There is an urgent need to rethink mortgage and do
it up differently using best of tried methods such
as crowd funding, and council run banking for
the locals.

It costs very little to set up online banks using
modern technology so councils should take a more
active role in eliminating mortgate companies
from operatng within their jurisdiction.

The council may take £200 to £1000 in rates but
spend all that money for the benefit of the locals.

However the locals are having to dish out £800 to
£2000 or more in mortgages to lenders in far
away cities loafing it all up and providing ZERO benenit
to the locals after having robbed them of so much
cash flow.

It cannot go on.

Councils need to step in, ban mortage companies from
operating in their area, and siphoning off huge
quantities of cash to distant benefactors that
serve no purpose for the locals.

Central government need to ease up on these schemes as well.

Its better for large poor areas because the mortgages
are lent by the council at favourable rates to the locals
who can then have more money in their pockets to regererate
the area. Even better if council with their big budgets
took to building houses. There is very little difference
in the total cost whether you specify a five star hotel type
of building or a 3rd rate soviet style messy construction.
So you may as well spend the little extra and specify
all building be built to 5 star hotel standards,
and they will last at leat 20 years before big mainenance.
It will bring up an area in a stable and sustainable way
compared to any other hair brained alternative schemes,
and schemes as practiced today.
 
B

Bert

In 7
It costs very little to set up online banks using
modern technology so councils should take a more
active role in eliminating mortgate companies
from operatng within their jurisdiction.
Where are your councils going to find the money that they're going to
lend out?

And, when they ultimately start lending money to poor risks who don't
pay, how do they intend to collect?
 
Ad

Advertisements

7

7

Bert said:
Where are your councils going to find the money that they're going to
lend out?
Read the original post - many options:

Run a crowd funding site.
Create council run bank.
And, when they ultimately start lending money to poor risks who don't
pay, how do they intend to collect?
Exactly the same way as they collect council tax.
And they have plenty of experience of that.

Any way, define poor risk!!

They just take the building and give it to someone else - zero risk - at
best a few days of interruption to cash flow.


Eliminating mortgage companies from counties and boroughs
---------------------------------------------------------

There is an urgent need to rethink mortgage and do
it up differently using best of tried methods such
as crowd funding, and council run banking for
the locals.

It costs very little to set up online banks using
modern technology so councils should take a more
active role in eliminating mortgate companies
from operatng within their jurisdiction.

The council may take £200 to £1000 in rates but
spend all that money for the benefit of the locals.

However the locals are having to dish out £800 to
£2000 or more in mortgages to lenders in far
away cities loafing it all up and providing ZERO benenit
to the locals after having robbed them of so much
cash flow.

It cannot go on.

Councils need to step in, ban mortage companies from
operating in their area, and siphoning off huge
quantities of cash to distant benefactors that
serve no purpose for the locals.

Central government need to ease up on these schemes as well.

Its better for large poor areas because the mortgages
are lent by the council at favourable rates to the locals
who can then have more money in their pockets to regererate
the area. Even better if council with their big budgets
took to building houses. There is very little difference
in the total cost whether you specify a five star hotel type
of building or a 3rd rate soviet style messy construction.
So you may as well spend the little extra and specify
all building be built to 5 star hotel standards,
and they will last at leat 20 years before big mainenance.
It will bring up an area in a stable and sustainable way
compared to any other hair brained alternative schemes,
and schemes as practiced today.
 
A

alan_m

In 7


Where are your councils going to find the money that they're going to
lend out?
It all based on the magic pot of money that the government and local
council have. In reality it's taxation - I'm sure we can all afford
another couple of thousand pound per year to fund this scheme.

Or is it crowd funding where the investors don't want interest or any of
the capital back?
 
7

7

alan_m wrote:

It all based on the magic pot of money that the government and local
council have. In reality it's taxation - I'm sure we can all afford
another couple of thousand pound per year to fund this scheme.

Or is it crowd funding where the investors don't want interest or any of
the capital back?
Why don't you do some crowd funding before firing questions to which
you have zero understanding?

Example: https://www.fundingcircle.com/

Using that web site as a model to copy as best can be, lets imaging
joe bloggs want to buy a house. It costs 300,000 pounds.
And he reckons he can pay back in 10 years with his income, his
wife's income and relatives willing to help.

You give him £100 at interest of 15%, another person offer £1000 at 10%,
And so on until he has exceeded £300,000. The software then picks the lowest
interest rate offers and buys the house. He then pays capital
and interest monthly. So if you chipped in £1000, you got capital
and interest being paid back for the next 10 years.
:
Not everyone wants to wait 10 years for their money - so you can at these
web sites sell on these debts at a lower net price - example, £1000 debt
you could sell for £900 in a fire sale. The more options there are for
turning these debts into cash the better it is for everyone.
Say for example you make make an offer to sell the debt at £950 to meet some
bill, with the expectation to buy it back a month later at £1000. If the
system worked, its an easy 50 quid someone can make over a month helping out
a fellow crowd funder.

Where governments and banks can help is to be part of the
crowd in the crowd funding scheme.

At fundingcircle.com, the goverment also steps in to fund high tech
projects similar to the old SMART funding scheme where the
applicant qualifies for such assistance.
This time, they will offer the last 10% of the funds.

Crowd funding is very smart funding for everyone.
You can just spend your spare £100 at a time.
Or spend millions if you are resourced well enough
to read all the paperwork.

Not all projects get funding - so go and find something
realistic to put before crowd funders and get
that funding.
 
A

alan_m

Example: https://www.fundingcircle.com/

Using that web site as a model to copy as best can be, lets imaging
joe bloggs want to buy a house. It costs 300,000 pounds.
And he reckons he can pay back in 10 years with his income, his
wife's income and relatives willing to help.

You give him £100 at interest of 15%, another person offer £1000 at 10%,
If the person is credit worthy enough to for a lender to give him 300K
the rates would be a lot lower than 10% for a house purchase.

And so on until he has exceeded £300,000. The software then picks the lowest
interest rate offers and buys the house. He then pays capital
and interest monthly. So if you chipped in £1000, you got capital
and interest being paid back for the next 10 years.
In the past I have investigated this the of lending and its not as clear
cut as you believe and not as profitable for the lender as the headlines
on the web pages would have you believe.

There is an administrative charge to cover managing the funding, credit
checking the recipients etc. There is tax to pay on the interest you
receive. And then there is the default rate which when I looked a few
years back was around 2% for low risk loans and around 5% for high risk
loans (low risk = lower return on your money and more likely for it to
be working 100% of the time)).

With property you also have to consider the loan owner insuring it for
at least the loan amount and maintaining it to a reasonable standard,
both of which probably don't happen if they are in financial trouble.

Now suppose I was stupid enough to crowd fund a house purchase are you
now going to dictate where I must spend revenue I receive? I could use
it all on a foreign holiday rather than spending it locally.

If you really want to make an impact on money flowing out of the local
economy ban all supermarkets/shops from selling anything that hasn't
been grown/manufactured within a 30 mile radius of their doors.
 
7

7

alan_m wrote:

If the person is credit worthy enough to for a lender to give him 300K
the rates would be a lot lower than 10% for a house purchase.
Yup. OK.

And net interest related outgoings would be a lot lower if the person
chips in a percentage.

In the past I have investigated this the of lending and its not as clear
cut as you believe and not as profitable for the lender as the headlines
on the web pages would have you believe.
Yup. OK. Great news for the house buyer.
There is an administrative charge to cover managing the funding, credit
checking the recipients etc.
With modern technology, it is about 0.1%
There is tax to pay on the interest you
receive.
Great - tax man wins too.
And then there is the default rate which when I looked a few
years back was around 2% for low risk loans and around 5% for high risk
loans (low risk = lower return on your money and more likely for it to
be working 100% of the time)).

Great news here again. Extortionate rate money is
automatically filtered out and replaced by low rate bids.

With property you also have to consider the loan owner insuring it for
at least the loan amount and maintaining it to a reasonable standard,
both of which probably don't happen if they are in financial trouble.
Great news again. It applies to any mortage holder under all circumstances.
Now suppose I was stupid enough to crowd fund a house purchase are you
now going to dictate where I must spend revenue I receive? I could use
it all on a foreign holiday rather than spending it locally.
No chance. The money is not paid to you. Its paid to the seller.

There will always be fraudsters trying their luck,
which is why a management fee is levied to manage and best
practice crib sheets exist.

If you really want to make an impact on money flowing out of the local
economy ban all supermarkets/shops from selling anything that hasn't
been grown/manufactured within a 30 mile radius of their doors.
Happens in China all the time.
All cities must be self sufficient in food or the mayor gets shot.
 
J

JNugent

alan_m wrote:



Why don't you do some crowd funding before firing questions to which
you have zero understanding?

Example: https://www.fundingcircle.com/

Using that web site as a model to copy as best can be, lets imaging
joe bloggs want to buy a house. It costs 300,000 pounds.
And he reckons he can pay back in 10 years with his income, his
wife's income and relatives willing to help.

You give him £100 at interest of 15%, another person offer £1000 at 10%,
And so on until he has exceeded £300,000. The software then picks the lowest
interest rate offers and buys the house. He then pays capital
and interest monthly. So if you chipped in £1000, you got capital
and interest being paid back for the next 10 years.
:
Not everyone wants to wait 10 years for their money - so you can at these
web sites sell on these debts at a lower net price - example, £1000 debt
you could sell for £900 in a fire sale. The more options there are for
turning these debts into cash the better it is for everyone.
Say for example you make make an offer to sell the debt at £950 to meet some
bill, with the expectation to buy it back a month later at £1000. If the
system worked, its an easy 50 quid someone can make over a month helping out
a fellow crowd funder.

Where governments and banks can help is to be part of the
crowd in the crowd funding scheme.

At fundingcircle.com, the goverment also steps in to fund high tech
projects similar to the old SMART funding scheme where the
applicant qualifies for such assistance.
This time, they will offer the last 10% of the funds.

Crowd funding is very smart funding for everyone.
You can just spend your spare £100 at a time.
Or spend millions if you are resourced well enough
to read all the paperwork.

Not all projects get funding - so go and find something
realistic to put before crowd funders and get
that funding.
What's to stop people from doing that right now?

There are already a couple of schemes - run via web-sited - which allow
a straight match between (private) lender and (private) borrower with
only a small fee going to the scheme.
 
Ad

Advertisements

F

Fredxxx

And then more is added on top by the mortgage companies.
Read the original post and explain who collects
the interest and who loafs it all up with zero benefit
to the local infrastracture.
I'm trying to read where this money comes from?
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top