General comment about mortgage arrears

[EXC]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

EXC Your posts, at least those targeted at me, are always pointless so I shall no longer respond. Save the wear on your fingers - bullying isn't appropriate.

Wake, smell, coffee.

[scoobydoo]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

crickey - what have I started.???

Let me just state a couple of things

1) I am no expert on finances / assets etc - however If the company I work for got into trouble through bad decisions then we would be bust /defunct /out of business - and it may only be a small amount of people out of business - but there would be NO assistance financial or otherwise. Thats life.
2) I have dealt with possesion cases in the past dealt by irresponsible borrowing - however in the same vein as a previous poster most people do not take on a mortgage with the intention of defaulting and there are lots of genuine circumstances where people suddenly get into trouble with their payments THROUGH NO FAULT OF THIER OWN. All I am trying to say is that it is probably the most vunerable who do not take out PPI for various reasons and maybe this is an area that should be looked at.
3)The credit crunch in some ways may make a lot of people examine the way they do handle their finances and also think more carefully about house prices. The fact that they stabalise or fall is not always a bad thing. The problem is I think a lot of us have hoped that increases my provide our pension as we have lost faith in other investments.
4) I still think that we do need more education for young people before they leave school and again I would recommend the ML book and it explains credit/loans interest calculations in simple language .
5) and finally whether I choose to borrow it or not I still find the fact that some BS would lend me 5 x my salary at my age (quite ancient!) irresponsible and I am sorry you wont change my mind on that .

By the way any spelling mistakes are down to a dodgy laptop (honestly!):tinysmile_hmm_t2:



Jan

[scoobydoo]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

[quote=argentarius;56521]Northern Rock's 2007 accounts which are on their website.

.


"I have never said anything is just black and white. The whole point of what I was posting on here is that to suggest that debt is entirely the lenders' fault is a misleading, black and white, view.

Sure, lenders encourage people to borrow, because that's their business. But they generally lend to people they expect to pay them back because otherwise they don't make money. To suggest lenders deliberately drive people into unrepayable debt is not true, outside the baseball-bat-wielding community at least."



It was never stated i is all the lenders fault and you have in fact backed up my view in your second paragraph - they are in the business to make money and in fact even if people do default inost cases they will still regain their original investment one way or another. And of course borrowers have a responsibility as well no onehas denied that.

But if a son or daughter came back to you and said they had taken out an unsecured loan of £20000 although they only earnt £17000 per year . Now as they have ben put on short time at work ue to the credit crunch they can not afford the payments would you only be mad with them or would you also have a tinsy wincy bit of annoyance with the lender ?

Come on be honest the financial institutions have encouraged easy credit and every shop you go n they offer you a credit card of some sorts.And I agree a lot of people have become more materialistic and now its wake up time . I also would never condone people trying to avoid debt - but do believe a lot of people need help and sympathy when their situation is through no fault of their own.

jan

[scoobydoo]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

Mr Darling told the BBC: "What we are saying to banks is you have got to help people as well.
"If you can pass on those interest rate reductions, if you can help homeowners, help businesses, that will help all of us get through a very difficult time."
But the BBA spokesman said: "It's not quite as simple as that, I wish it was."
Mr Darling said the current economic turbulence was "the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression."


Hope I am not reading too much into this - but sounds like the banks have the upper hand here and may be using their power for political aims? Hope they are not going to bring the charges into the equasion.

If we could just obtain stability maybe we could ride it out but even if you dont like estate agents - mass unemployment is against all rules of economics. As a lot of this crisis is down to the banks they could at least try and play ball.

If the re-possession figures are going to be as high as they say where are all these people going to live?

Maybe all the banks and BS should take a longer term view and become land lords at reasonable rents instead of turfing people out.

Jan

[EXC]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

I think what Argentarious is forgetting is that the mortgage market is heavily commision driven and the reality is that those who sell mortgages don't give a monkey's whether the mortgage is repaid or not. This was the cause of the US sub prime crisis.

And the mere fact that the UK financial services industry has the need for a 'treating customers fairly' initiative - which in the FSA's own view is failing miserably - says all you need to know.

[scoobydoo]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

A city watchdog has sounded the alarm over irresponsible mortgage lending.

The Financial Services Authority says banks and building societies have been failing to make proper checks on customers' ability to meet repayments.

The authority is worried that some applicants have been encouraged to lie about their income - a criminal offence - to qualify for a loan they cannot repay.

Others have been given mortgages that will run well beyond their retirement age, despite the fact they will have no income for repayments.

Thousands have taken out interest-only mortgages without putting in place a savings plan to pay off the original loan.
It means millions could be pushed into serious debt problems if the Bank of England raises interest rates again as expected today. That would deepen a national debt crisis where repayments on £1.3trillion of personal debt have hit an all-time high.


found this from july 07

[Amethyst]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

The authority is worried that some applicants have been encouraged to lie about their income - a criminal offence - to qualify for a loan they cannot repay.

This is true and in many cases it was the only way people could get on/up the housing ladder, or in a person I knows case, just move a few miles down the road to get the kids in a decent school. In my opinion they should have been discouraged and told to rent while they saved or improved to earn enough to afford to buy.

[argentarius]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

I'm not confused about anything and I assure you I know how to read a set of accounts. The only reason Northern Rock are still in business is because they were bailed out. The fact that the Government have now purchased them (after six months of expensive dithering) does not alter that fact.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. If you can read a set of accounts, I can't imagine why you would suggest that the government had given NR over 50 times their net asset value, as if that was somehow wrong. And as I've said, whilst you could consider the original lending to NR a bail out (albeit secured on mortgage assets and representing no risk to the government) the subsequent nationalisation was not a bail out, but effectively a swap of loan security for the underlying assets.

1) I am no expert on finances / assets etc - however If the company I work for got into trouble through bad decisions then we would be bust /defunct /out of business - and it may only be a small amount of people out of business - but there would be NO assistance financial or otherwise. Thats life.

I've already agreed that the government's interest in NR's future was likely driven by the number of Labour constituency jobs involved. But that doesn't, per se, make the assistance given a "bail out" implying something for nothing.

2) I have dealt with possesion cases in the past dealt by irresponsible borrowing - however in the same vein as a previous poster most people do not take on a mortgage with the intention of defaulting and there are lots of genuine circumstances where people suddenly get into trouble with their payments THROUGH NO FAULT OF THIER OWN. All I am trying to say is that it is probably the most vunerable who do not take out PPI for various reasons and maybe this is an area that should be looked at.

Absolutely. Although it's ironic that effectively we had a nationalised system of PPI in that mortgages were paid for those on benefits, after a relatively short qualifying period, until the last Conservative government changed the way this worked in 1995. Strange that Labour hasn't reversed this during the 11 years they've had to do so - but, hey, better to go for headlines and sound bites by haranguing mortgage lenders for not passing on base rate cuts which don't actually save them any money.

3)The credit crunch in some ways may make a lot of people examine the way they do handle their finances and also think more carefully about house prices. The fact that they stabalise or fall is not always a bad thing. The problem is I think a lot of us have hoped that increases my provide our pension as we have lost faith in other investments.

I totally agree. People have got brainwashed into the "property always rises in value" concept and act irrationally - buying when they could rent for half the price, for example.

4) I still think that we do need more education for young people before they leave school and again I would recommend the ML book and it explains credit/loans interest calculations in simple language.

Absolutely. My employer supports employees volunteering in assisting schoolchildren with literacy and numeracy; it would be good for employers to do the same in the arena of financial literacy and I'd love to be involved in that sort of volunteering (as well as the others which I have done).

5) and finally whether I choose to borrow it or not I still find the fact that some BS would lend me 5 x my salary at my age (quite ancient!) irresponsible and I am sorry you wont change my mind on that.

Arguably it's more responsible to lend a higher multiple to older people, who are likely to have lower outgoings - for example, if they are beyond child-rearing years. But 5 times salary is a high amount for anyone except a professional likely to have rapidly increasing earnings.

By the way any spelling mistakes are down to a dodgy laptop (honestly!):tinysmile_hmm_t2:

I hate typing on anything other than a standard sized keyboard - laptops can be quite horrible to use!

It was never stated i is all the lenders fault and you have in fact backed up my view in your second paragraph - they are in the business to make money and in fact even if people do default inost cases they will still regain their original investment one way or another. And of course borrowers have a responsibility as well no one has denied that.

But if a son or daughter came back to you and said they had taken out an unsecured loan of £20000 although they only earnt £17000 per year . Now as they have ben put on short time at work ue to the credit crunch they can not afford the payments would you only be mad with them or would you also have a tinsy wincy bit of annoyance with the lender ?

Frankly, I would be totally annoyed with my child as £20,000 is a ludicrous amount for anyone to borrow if it exceeds one year's salary. I wouldn't be annoyed with the lender - but I'd think the lending was inappropriate. Being annoyed with individuals is productive; being annoyed at corporations isn't because they don't have feelings.

Come on be honest the financial institutions have encouraged easy credit and every shop you go n they offer you a credit card of some sorts.And I agree a lot of people have become more materialistic and now its wake up time . I also would never condone people trying to avoid debt - but do believe a lot of people need help and sympathy when their situation is through no fault of their own.

I totally agree that anyone in debt deserves support, guidance and help - and sympathy if they don't find that term a touch condescending. As regards easy credit, obviously it's easier to borrow. But people are still responsible for their own borrowing choices.

Mr Darling told the BBC: "What we are saying to banks is you have got to help people as well.
"If you can pass on those interest rate reductions, if you can help homeowners, help businesses, that will help all of us get through a very difficult time."
But the BBA spokesman said: "It's not quite as simple as that, I wish it was."
Mr Darling said the current economic turbulence was "the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression."

Hope I am not reading too much into this - but sounds like the banks have the upper hand here and may be using their power for political aims? Hope they are not going to bring the charges into the equasion.

This whole meeting was all spin. There's nothing Darling can do to make the banks do anything. And telling them to "pass on" reductions is based on the incorrect myth that banks' funding costs are materially affected by BoE base rate - which they are not. The press has been reporting this week that LIBOR has hardly changed despite the rate cut. LIBOR is driven by supply and demand, and there is not sufficient supply of liquid cash for it to be reduced. What the BoE does is fairly irrelevant. Indeed, it's worse than that for the banks. Because a large proportion of borrowers are on existing deals, they are getting the benefit of the base rate cut. But the lenders' funding costs are not falling, so their margins are falling.

If we could just obtain stability maybe we could ride it out but even if you dont like estate agents - mass unemployment is against all rules of economics. As a lot of this crisis is down to the banks they could at least try and play ball.

I'm not sure how you think the banks can "play ball". The only way for them to do so is to incur losses. That's not in their shareholders' interests so it wouldn't be right for them to do so.

If the re-possession figures are going to be as high as they say where are all these people going to live?

In rented property, surely? Repossessed properties don't cease to exist. If properties are repossessed and flood the market, prices will fall; some of those who would have rented will buy; some of the properties which would have been rented by them will be available for those who have been repossessed.

Maybe all the banks and BS should take a longer term view and become land lords at reasonable rents instead of turfing people out.

There are capital-related reasons why it's not economic for banks to act as landlords. And the concept of mortgage-to-rental conversions has an awful lot of complexity involved. I can't see this being a practical idea.

I think what Argentarious is forgetting is that the mortgage market is heavily commision driven and the reality is that those who sell mortgages don't give a monkey's whether the mortgage is repaid or not. This was the cause of the US sub prime crisis.

You make a fair point and it's good to widen the debate to brokers, although others' comments have been focused on lender behaviour.

A large proportion of the dubious mortgages which have been sold in the past decade have been intermediary-sold. Arguably most of the "self cert" (read: "lie about your income") mortgages were intermediary-sold. And the dodgier types of mortgage often gave larger commission rates than the prime mortgages, giving an incentive to the less reputable brokers to suggest "self cert" even where it was not necessary. The same certainly applies to NR's Together product, for example.

And the mere fact that the UK financial services industry has the need for a 'treating customers fairly' initiative - which in the FSA's own view is failing miserably - says all you need to know.

I don't believe that anyone does have a "need" for TCF and I'm not surprised if the FSA think it's failing miserably. When you look at

We have defined six consumer outcomes, which explain what we want TCF to achieve for consumers.


Outcome 1: Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture.
Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly.
Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale.
Outcome 4: Where consumers receive advice, the advice is suitable and takes account of their circumstances.
Outcome 5: Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is of an acceptable standard and as they have been led to expect.
Outcome 6: Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.

it really makes me think "what is new there"?

A city watchdog has sounded the alarm over irresponsible mortgage lending.

The Financial Services Authority says banks and building societies have been failing to make proper checks on customers' ability to meet repayments.

The authority is worried that some applicants have been encouraged to lie about their income - a criminal offence - to qualify for a loan they cannot repay.

Others have been given mortgages that will run well beyond their retirement age, despite the fact they will have no income for repayments.

Thousands have taken out interest-only mortgages without putting in place a savings plan to pay off the original loan.
It means millions could be pushed into serious debt problems if the Bank of England raises interest rates again as expected today. That would deepen a national debt crisis where repayments on £1.3trillion of personal debt have hit an all-time high.

If people were encouraged to lie, it was by brokers not lenders.

And it's irrelevant if mortgages run beyond retirement age - if people choose to do so, they can sell their house at retirement and rent, or move to a less expensive house. It's a choice whether to take this route or not - nobody makes people borrow beyond retirement.

Ditto regarding interest only - people can borrow for 25 or 40 years, on interest only, then sell their property and redeem the mortgage. It may be cheaper for them than renting; it's certainly more stable as renting involves the risk of being booted out each time the landlord wants a change of tenant or simply to sell up.

[EXC]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

''You make a fair point and it's good to widen the debate to brokers, although others' comments have been focused on lender behaviour.''

It's all the broker's fault is it? That's alright then. Silly me, I must of been under the misaprehension that lenders paid brokers on the number of mortgages they sell.

And are you seriously telling me that mortgage sales managers in the high street banks work in a bonus-free environment?

''I don't believe that anyone does have a "need" for TCF and I'm not surprised if the FSA think it's failing miserably. When you look at

We have defined six consumer outcomes, which explain what we want TCF to achieve for consumers.


Outcome 1: Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture.
Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly.
Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale.
Outcome 4: Where consumers receive advice, the advice is suitable and takes account of their circumstances.
Outcome 5: Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is of an acceptable standard and as they have been led to expect.
Outcome 6: Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.

it really makes me think "what is new there"?''

Thanks but I'm quite up to speed with TCF and the fact that you think there is nothing new in it makes my point.

This might come as a bit of a shock but the need or otherwise of TCF is not based on your opinion but that of the regulator who is funded by the industry. The financial services must be the only regulated industry out there who have to be told to treat their customers fairly and this would stongly indicate that they don't or am I missing something? Even the industry itself accepts this as is clearly demonstrated in the current ad campaigns by Nationwide and Natwest where bankers are portrayed as little more than bottom feeding fish and the advertiser is claiming to be somehow different.

Your desparate and transparent attempts to paint a picture of roses and blame the entire mess on the ignorance of consumers is clearly driven by your need to justify your biased position in the industry. From my uncontaminated perspective, things are very clear.

[Guest]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. If you can read a set of accounts, I can't imagine why you would suggest that the government had given NR over 50 times their net asset value, as if that was somehow wrong. And as I've said, whilst you could consider the original lending to NR a bail out (albeit secured on mortgage assets and representing no risk to the government) the subsequent nationalisation was not a bail out, but effectively a swap of loan security for the underlying assets.

Northern Rock expect to lose significant sums of money this year and beyond and it doesn't expect to make annual break-even again until 2011.

"In 2008 the business is expected to be significantly loss-making, as a consequence of both the anticipated one-off restructuring costs, which are likely to be substantial and higher funding costs." Restructuring Plan: Executive Summary 31 March 2008

Furthermore, any assets are far from secure and represent considerable risk. For example, Northern Rock took a £240m charge in 2007 for loan-loss impairment, three times the previous year's figure and its restructuring plan envisages significant further deterioration this year. Notwithstanding any of that, analysis of Northern Rock's accounts shows that £53bn of mortgages, which is over 70% of its mortgage portfolio, was not owned by Northern Rock at all, but by a separate offshore company.

Those encouraged to redeem their mortgages and borrow elsewhere (the target is 60% redemption between now and 2011) will inevitably be the better quality ones, the people who can find alternative lenders. Northern Rock will be left with all the junk. Already 10,000 Northern Rock customers are a month or more in arrears on their mortgages, on loans worth nearly £1.2bn. At the end of 2003, there were only 2,500 in the same difficulties, with mortgages worth £168.8m. This situation is hardly going to improve.

It is somewhat airily predicted that Northern Rock will achieve an A- credit rating on a standalone basis sometime around 2011. Even if it succeeds, which is highly unlikely and as you will know, A- is a pretty low rating by High Street bank standards.

Handing over money, apparently secured on mortgages that are far from secure in order to keep a company afloat is a bail out whichever way you look at it.

[argentarius]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

''You make a fair point and it's good to widen the debate to brokers, although others' comments have been focused on lender behaviour.''

It's all the broker's fault is it? That's alright then. Silly me, I must of been under the misaprehension that lenders paid brokers on the number of mortgages they sell.

And are you seriously telling me that mortgage sales managers in the high street banks work in a bonus-free environment?

To adopt one of your favourite, though most irritating, habits, let me ask you to show me where I said that "mortgage sales managers in the high street banks work in a bonus-free environment".

Clearly some staff within high street banks are remunerated based on sales. I never said otherwise. But, as I've already said, most of the self-cert and other "dodgy" loans have been lent through brokers and the brokers are culpable for either telling their clients to lie, or not caring whether they do so or not.

My distinction between "lenders" and "brokers" could equally well have been between "product providers" and "salespersons" if that makes you any happier. I'm not seeking to criticise solely brokers and defend bank sales staff - which is why I haven't said a word in support of bank sales staff prior to this post.

Thanks but I'm quite up to speed with TCF and the fact that you think there is nothing new in it makes my point.

This might come as a bit of a shock but the need or otherwise of TCF is not based on your opinion but that of the regulator who is funded by the industry. The financial services must be the only regulated industry out there who have to be told to treat their customers fairly and this would stongly indicate that they don't or am I missing something? Even the industry itself accepts this as is clearly demonstrated in the current ad campaigns by Nationwide and Natwest where bankers are portrayed as little more than bottom feeding fish and the advertiser is claiming to be somehow different.

Your desparate and transparent attempts to paint a picture of roses and blame the entire mess on the ignorance of consumers is clearly driven by your need to justify your biased position in the industry. From my uncontaminated perspective, things are very clear.

Sarcasm doesn't develop the argument at all. I'm not "shocked" that it's the regulator's idea that TCF is worthwhile - that's obvious even to you. I don't quite see the relevance of who funds the regulator in this regard.

You know very well, from other threads, that almost all participants in regulated industries are being told to treat their customers more fairly, and are failing to do so. Your pretence that this is solely a banking issue is, frankly, ridiculous. Just look at the telecoms and energy regulated industries, where mis-selling is , IMHO, more endemic than it is in financial services.

How many people have had their mortgage forcibly switched to another lender without their consent?

Northern Rock expect to lose significant sums of money this year and beyond and it doesn't expect to make annual break-even again until 2011.

"In 2008 the business is expected to be significantly loss-making, as a consequence of both the anticipated one-off restructuring costs, which are likely to be substantial and higher funding costs." Restructuring Plan: Executive Summary 31 March 2008

Furthermore, any assets are far from secure and represent considerable risk. For example, Northern Rock took a £240m charge in 2007 for loan-loss impairment, three times the previous year's figure and its restructuring plan envisages significant further deterioration this year. Notwithstanding any of that, analysis of Northern Rock's accounts shows that £53bn of mortgages, which is over 70% of its mortgage portfolio, was not owned by Northern Rock at all, but by a separate offshore company.

Those encouraged to redeem their mortgages and borrow elsewhere (the target is 60% redemption between now and 2011) will inevitably be the better quality ones, the people who can find alternative lenders. Northern Rock will be left with all the junk. Already 10,000 Northern Rock customers are a month or more in arrears on their mortgages, on loans worth nearly £1.2bn. At the end of 2003, there were only 2,500 in the same difficulties, with mortgages worth £168.8m. This situation is hardly going to improve.

It is somewhat airily predicted that Northern Rock will achieve an A- credit rating on a standalone basis sometime around 2011. Even if it succeeds, which is highly unlikely and as you will know, A- is a pretty low rating by High Street bank standards.

Handing over money, apparently secured on mortgages that are far from secure in order to keep a company afloat is a bail out whichever way you look at it.

Everything you say is true, apart from your conclusion.

The initial government loans were backed by security of mortgages. I don't know what level of over-collateralisation was required, but I would expect there to have been over-collateralisation to account for risk of impairment. It is a myth to believe the government was handing money over in exchange for nothing.

And, now that nationalisation has happened, nothing has really changed except that the government has gained control in a more explicit way. It still has more assets under its control (even accounting for impairment) than it has lent.

I'm not denying the possibility that NR will lose enough money over the next 3-4 years to eliminate its reserves, and to reduce (or reverse) the margin of safety that the government has for the ultimate recovery of its loans. But liquidation wouldn't have served anyone any better. If, as you reckon, "the shareholders should have lost everything" then eventually losses would have fallen on NR's investors, leading to costs to the FSCS and ultimately other financial institutions.

At least this way, NR can work down its employees over a number of years, maximising their opportunities for employment elsewhere. A "short sharp shock" would have been awful for those employees.

You talk about arrears. But for any lender, a fair number of borrowers are in arrears at any point in time. And very many of them resolve their situation - they find a new job, or recovery from illness, or sell their property and hence clear the debt. Arrears don't necessary lead to loss for the lender. Northern Rock's assets have increased hugely since 2003, so it's not surprising that their arrears levels have to. Their arrears are still (according to their accounts) way lower than the average of the mortgage industry. [Although I know those who would argue NR suppressed reporting of arrears by, for example, consolidating arrears to a far greater extent than other lenders].

Boiling my argument down, I don't believe that liquidation would have been the best thing; I don't believe that what the government did was exceptional in comparison to other countries in similar situations; I don't believe that NR is necessarily going to cost the taxpayer anything at all and I think the whole thing has been blown out of all proportion. All the tosh in the papers like "you have given NR £2,000 per household" (or whatever the numbers were) was simply tosh.

[Kafka]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

How many people have had their mortgage forcibly switched to another lender without their consent?

Me for one. See my thread on Derbyshire Home Loans.

They eventually dropped the ridiculous rate they were intending to charge - with no explanation - but have not so far answered my questions about how they are calculating this. I seem to have been stitched up here and will have to pay a heavy price on top of the agreed mortgage increase after the two-year period.

As far as I can see they have no intention of honouring the agreement and the SVR is whatever they want it to be, happily unencumbered by national rates that are supposed to be the only influence on their rate. I never intended to stick with the mortagge after two years, but circumstances have dictated otherwise. Kensington granted the mortgage, apparently with no intention of keeping it, so that DHL could claim the rights but not have to abide by the agreement as they are a different company.

[argentarius]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

Thanks for the reference to the other thread, Kafka.

It isn't the situation I'm talking about, i.e. phone and utility "slamming". In your situation with DHL, your original contract provided for the loan to be transferred to another lender. This is incredibly common in mortgage contracts - not just from the dodgy end of the mortgage market. It's a necessary term for any lender who ever intends to conduct mortgage securitisations - so, for example, all Northern Rock mortgages would have had this term for many years.

[EXC]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

To adopt one of your favourite, though most irritating, habits, let me ask you to show me where I said that "mortgage sales managers in the high street banks work in a bonus-free environment"..

I didn't. I asked ''are you seriously telling me...'' and not ''you are telling me.''

Get a grip!

[argentarius]

Re: General comment about mortgage arrears

No, I am not. And nor could that be inferred from anything I've said.