Mortgages of 100% "Were Foolish"

Lord Myners tells us it was "foolish" for banks to offer 100% mortgages.

I haven't had to take out a mortgage in the last six years, so I haven't paid any attention to what seems to have been a pretty chaotic time for both lenders and customers in the mortgage markets.

I imagine the long and the short of it going down something like this:

Bank Manager: We'd be delighted to offer you a 100% interest-only mortgage, sir.
Customer: Excellent! So do we need to pay a fee or some kind of indemnity?
BM: No, no. It's fine. Just sign here and here.
C: But there is some kind of charge, right?
BM: You'll need to have a conveyancing solicitor carry out the standard searches.
C: Sure, but what do you guys get out of it?
BM: Another satisfied customer!
C: Right. But if I were to stop paying my mortgage.... what then?
BM: Well, we all hope that never happens, but if it were to, then we'd be forced to repossess your property.
C: The property you're offering a 100% interest-only mortgage on?
BM: Yes.
C: So if we stop paying our mortgage, you'll effectively just take back the property you've paid for on our behalf?
BM: Essentially, yes.
C: Where do I sign?

Now I know it isn't quite so straight forward as I make out, and that there are penalties for defaulting, but the above isn't a million miles away from the truth. The last time I had to get a mortgage I had to pay a deposit, prove my earnings, swear my devotion to Xenu and join a cult.* If I go into arrears I'll be forced to drink the Kool-Aid.

What the hell kind of business model was being followed giving people 100% interest-only mortgages? People taking up these offers had less to lose than if they were renting - at least then there would have been the threat of losing a deposit. I understand not everyone can afford the deposit on a house, but that doesn't mean you should just rewrite the rules so everyone suddenly can. I guess the current state of the global economy mirrors the durability of said business models.

*The author is not a follower of Scientology, nor any religion and respects the rights of others to worship freely. Nor is he suggesting Scientology or any other religion is a cult, or that Scientology or any other cult would necessarily encourage or demand its members to commit ritual suicide.

Qatada

Today the BBC reported that Jacqui Smith, the British Home Secretary is "very disappointed" that the European Court of Human Rights has awarded compensation to radical Islamic preacher Abu Qatada.

The Shadow Security Minister Crispin Blunt also went on record echoing Mrs. Smith's consternation and also seized the opportunity to criticise the government, calling the decision "an appalling scandal... ...[that] will horrify most reasonable people in the UK." He went on to say "It shows just how incompetent the government has been at managing the problem of preachers of hate and, frankly, it makes a mockery of the concept of human rights if we can't protect ourselves against people who are out to destroy our society."

Qatada was arrested in South London in October 2002 having been on the run from authorities since December 2001, when new anti-terrorism laws were passed in the wake of 9/11. He has been detained at Belmarsh Prison, Long Lartin Jail and under a Control Order, or strict house arrest since. Albeit a £800k house.*

Qatada arrived in Britain with his wife and kids using a fake passport back in 1993 and claimed asylum, which was granted the following year. Since then the authorities have been all over him like flies on shit. And not without good reason. He has been linked to various unsavoury deeds and people including:
*Praising attacks on Americans and the killing of Jews.
*Alleged association with Richard Reid, the infamous 'shoe bomber'.
*Being found in possession of £170,000 in cash, including £805 in an envelope marked "For the mujahedin in Chechnya".
*Issuing a fatwa justifying the killing of converts from Islam in Algeria.

The problem the authorities have with the above objectionable acts is that none of them are technically illegal according to the letter of the law, or at least weren't, before the new anti-terror laws came into effect. This poses a huge problem. Police have historically flexed their muscle to persuade wrongdoers to correct their wayward actions. They've done it to me (with little success) and to my friends. The theory is based on a universal respect for the law (and the enforcers thereof) and the other civilians we share the planet with. For most of us law-abiding, tax-paying citizens this is just fine. But what happens when your beliefs contradict the law of the land? At the bottom end of the scale is the young person paying their own way through university, studying hard all day, working a part time job at night and smoking a little weed when the opportunity arises. This is illegal. But surely working toward your degree (whilst paying tax) so you can better yourself and be somebody and make a positive contribution to society one day offsets this minor infraction?

Because of this, the Judges sitting in the European Court of Human Rights ruled that his six-year detention without trial breached his human rights. Jacqui Smith stated that the now-withdrawn measures had been devised in "good faith" to protect the general public, which I wholeheartedly believe.

I am not bleeding-heart liberal. I may have a leaning toward the left wing, but I also agree with parts of the right's manifesto. For instance, I believe in the right to a fair trial by jury, and food, clothes and shelter for all, regardless of how willing they may or may not be to contribute to the greater good. However, I also believe that I should have the right to keep a handgun in my home to better enable me to protect my property and loved ones. If we, the British people, are expected to live by a certain set of laws, then they should apply to every one of us, regardless of whether you were born here, or how you came to be a British citizen, regardless of any poor asylum decisions (it was a different world back then).

The European Court of Human Rights is merely upholding the law that guarantees us all basic civil liberties. You cannot persecute human beings without a fair trial. To do so would make us no better than those we judge to be "enemies of the free world."

The sums awarded in this most recent case are nominal at most. Abu Qatada himself was given £2,500 in compensation for over six years of incarceration and restriction of freedom. That works out at approximately £1 a day.

Everyone 'knows' what's going on, but no-one seems able to prove it. No-one can pin a conviction on him. And until they can, they're going to have a hell of a hard time justifying keeping him behind bars.

This post is riddled with poor evidence and hearsay, which is mainly due to the fact that there is nothing in the public domain that incriminates him as far as I can tell.





*Where the hell do you get £800k council houses?

McKinnon ain't goin' nowhere

It looks like Gary McKinnon won't be extradited to the United States. The entire episode is a farce of epic proportion. If you're not familiar with the story, here's a brief summary:

A man who was "diagnosed last August [2008] as having Asperger's Syndrome" hacked systems belonging to NASA and the US Navy looking for "classified documents on UFOs which he believed the US authorities had suppressed." He illegally accessed a total of 97 systems in 2001 and 2002. The US Government claim McKinnon's actions caused $800,000 of damage and wish to prosecute him accordingly.

For me, the key element in this case is that McKinnon used his own email address throughout. Furthermore, as McKinnon used his own email address, it cannot have cost the US Government anywhere near $800,000 to ID him.

There are so many levels of pedantry at work here. The USA got 0wned and they're not happy about it. I understand why they're upset, but why on earth are they making such a big deal of it? If Joe Calzaghe spilled some nobody's pint and got knocked out because of it, he wouldn't sue. He wouldn't get litigious, he wouldn't do a damn thing after the event. He'd take it, like a man, probably buy the bar for the feller in question and move on with a wink and a nod. The last thing he'd do is plaster it all over the news and push for charges to be brought.

The "greatest super power on the face of the earth" got h4x0red, and now they're crying to mummy. What has America come to? The founding fathers didn't sail across the Atlantic so their descendants could piss and whine about some limey exposing their weaknesses.



Author's note: - I don't remember posting this. Quite eloquent for an alcoholic though, if I may say so myself.

...According to The Daily Mail...

...Sarah Palin is "blasting the media" "for giving her unfair and class-biased treatment during the election campaign." She has also allegedly "questioned whether Caroline Kennedy, John F Kennedy's daughter, was getting better treatment from the news media in her quest for a Senate seat than she herself received."

Wow. Where do I start, how on Earth do I close, and who is to blame for this shambolic piece of reportage? The Mail's report gives no indication of how Palin's coverage was "class-biased," so I won't take that approach, nor does it expand on how she was "exploited." One quote The Mail has printed [on the subject of Caroline Kennedy's interest in her mother's soon-to-be-vacant seat in the Senate, which was assumably uttered by, but not explicitly accredited to Palin] reads "It's going to be interesting to see how that plays out and I think that as we watch that we will perhaps be able to prove that there is a class issue here also that was such a factor in the scrutiny of my candidacy versus, say, the scrutiny of what her candidacy may be." Take that as you may.

Two things jump out at me here. One. The article in question is terrible; poorly written and devoid of any real meaning, and more importantly, evidence. Two. According to said article, Palin is upset about the treatment she received from The Press whilst running for Vice President of the United States of America alongside John McCain. Now it may have been over a year ago, but I distinctly remember the President-elect getting a pretty tough time in the press over his admission of drug use and attacks on his lack of experience, whilst being 'accused'* of being a Muslim and a terrorist sympathiser.

A lot of shit's been written about Palin online, and while the bulk of it may not be nice, un-biased or even fair, once you step onto the World Stage you must not only expect The People to discuss you, but also to dissect, ridicule and ultimately judge you. Obama had to weather the same adversity, and went on to win fair and square.

In my mind, the entire shit-storm you weather once you step up is just part of the race for candidacy. I don't necessarily agree with any of it, but complaining about it post-defeat, especially as your adversary had such an uphill struggle sounds pretty unsporting.

Palin's comment about Caroline Kennedy's interest in becoming Senator for New York sounds even more desperate. The Kennedys are practically royalty in America, and drawing comparisons or picking a fight with any of them can only end in tears.

Palin can and should by all means run again in 2012, but right now, don't gripe about what could have been; the people of America don't want to hear such talk and it will do you no favours.


*How do you accuse someone of being Muslim? One might suggest someone is a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Patriot or a Hard-Working-Average-Joe, but I don't see how that could be an accusation.

Stop Being So Crude

Taken from the BBC.

Apologies for preaching to the choir, but oil is no different from any other commodity. The less there is, and the harder it is to get, the more expensive it becomes.

Oil is running out. Fact.
Oil is mostly found in areas of geopolitical conflict. Fact.

The above graph is not adjusted for inflation. The one below is.
I'm not for one second saying oil is not getting more expensive (and please bare in mind the prices shown are for crude, not the fuel we actually buy at the pumps which is far dearer and subject to myriad other market forces). What I am saying is that the current price of oil is merely part of a far, far bigger picture. In real terms, all the above data shows is that the price of oil is similar to what it was the last time Iraq was at war.

I'm actually...

...a counter agent for Obama....

...could it be more obvious?

AIG

I nearly purchased shares in AIG on the morning of Tuesday September 16th before the markets opened. The only thing that stopped me was an unforeseen difficulty in trading on the NYSE, being based in the UK. That and the fact I had an inhuman amount of work to do that day.

I'm going on record so we can use this as a benchmark to see whether I would have lost some cash or profited.

I have never dealt in stocks and shares before. I was prompted to buy AIG stock while listening to the early morning news about their financial woes that Tuesday. When Northern Rock faltered earlier this year I heard about it on the radio on my commute ahead of market opening. The first thing I thought was "I should really buy some shares." I didn't, and their share price "rocketed" briefly (citation needed). It was brief, but it was long enough to hop in and hop out, making some paper in the process.

Anyway, we'll see what happens with AIG, and see if I should trust my instinct or give a market I have absolutely no knowledge of a wide berth.

...to be continued...