Posts Tagged ‘Mortgages’

HOW TO BUY YOUR OWN HOUSE BY JUST RENTING IT

September 18, 2015

Anyone interested in  setting up a housing co-operative to buy housing to then rent to our members along the lines of the idea below ?

My idea is to simply set up an organisation which would continuously seek crowdfunding  for redeemable shares offering (at present) about 3-4% which would be used to purchase rentable homes. The redeemable shares would enable savers currently offered laughable savings rates by the banks to be able to use this as a safe and reliable method of  savings offering much better returns than banks.

The tenants to which these homes would be rented  would also share in the profit their rent ultimately generates as it pays off the purchase cost. The whole idea is to enable the tenants to build up a sum of money from the profits of the organisation for them to use as a deposit to buy their own home.

If the funds borrowed to 100% fund the purchase are fully repaid by means of charging rent, at the end of a term similar to an average type of mortgage of, say 25 years, then at that point the organisation would own the asset outright. It would obviously then be able to offer a portion of the value of that asset to the tenant.

This portion would accrue from the moment the tenant commences paying rent and would be available to the tenant whenever he leaves  which could be at any time. He does not have to remain any longer than any initial short tenancy.

The tenant would always be paying a ‘market’ rent the same as any other tenant. But he would be getting something back that no other tenant ever does. He will be getting back a portion of the rent he has paid which he can then use as his deposit to go and buy his own home with an ordinary mortgage if he so wishes.

Instead of just paying rent to line a landlord’s pocket, tenants would get something back so their rent would be not completely wasted money dow the drain as it normally is for all tenants.

This model would thus enable a person with no capital whatever to accrue a deposit for their own home purchase, or even use this organisation to end up either a long leaseholder on  low rent if he wished to remain in the property. It could almost be viewed as a means of just turning an ordinary rental into a (different) type of mortgage for the ultimate purchase of a home. A mortgage where no deposit is needed at all. It’s just a rental that eventually just turns into actual home ownership.

It offers a means of home ownership which dis-enfranchises no-one and whereby any tenant turns progressively into an owner.

If set up as the legal concept of a Co-op, it is legally allowed to ask the public to invest in redeemable shares which  would pay an interest rate which might currently be 3-4%.

This is just a brief description of the idea, obviously there is a lot of detail to ramble on about, but I’ll leave that for  the moment as it isn’t needed until people want to know more and join.

Oh, by the way. I have spent a lot of time doing all the maths and the idea does work. You can have a look for yourself if you are interested & contact me.

With the help of the crowdfunding crowd, we can cut the legs of those greedy bankers and eventually take all their mortgage business away from them so that every penny people pay to live in a home goes directly towards actually paying for that home and not the huge profits for  greedy bankers.

This idea has wings; it could take off and fly !

leave a comment if you’re interested !

CORRUPT COUNCILS ACTING ILLEGALLY BY FALSELY CLAIMING HOUSING APPLICANTS ARE ‘INTENTIONALLY HOMELESS’.

March 9, 2015

8th March 2015

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535136/Average-British-family-home-size-shrinks-two-square-metres-decade-increasing-numbers-forced-live-flats.html

I’ve just seen a TV programme about three single mothers being homeless and the utterly filthy way they are treated by their local councils. (BBC one March 3rd 2015 –  ‘No Place to Call Home)  see it here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b054dvws/no-place-to-call-home

One woman & her two kids had been forced to leave the privately rented flat she was renting because the boiler broke  and the typically nauseating private landlord simply refused to mend it. So this single mother arranged to live with her own mother in the mother’s council house.

But the council found out and told the mother she would be evicted from her own council house herself if she continued to allow her daughter & two kids to stay with her as the council said that made the council house overcrowded.

As the threat from the council now meant the mother, daughter and two kids would all be thrown out on the streets to be homeless by this spiteful and vindictive council, the mother had no choice but to tell her own daughter to leave.

This made the daughter and two kids ‘street homeless’- they had absolutely nowhere to go except live on the streets because they could not find private accommodation they would be able to afford quickly enough, if at all, as rents were nearly all far higher than they had any hope of being to afford – even if they received ‘Housing Benefit’.

Housing benefit has been cunningly arranged by this disgusting Tory Government to be too low for tenants receiving it to have much hope of finding any privately rentable accommodation.

So, this single mother is obliged to inform the council she and her young children will be on the streets, and could the council therefore re-house her as the law says it has a legal obligation to do.

No, said the council. We know we have a statutory duty where an Act of Parliament says councils have a legal obligation to house homeless parents with children, but we’re not going to. And we’re not going to because part of that same Act of Parliament says that if a person has made themselves ‘intentionally homeless’ we are allowed to refuse people we would otherwise have a legal obligation  to re-house.

So we are telling you, single mother with two young kids, that we think you are intentionally homeless and you can go F**k yourself; we’re not going to house you.

The Council used the Alice in Wonderland logic that this single mother was “intentionally homeless’ because she had ‘voluntarily’ left ‘her previous accommodation’ the privately rented accommodation with it’s broken boiler the private landlord refused to mend  with winter approaching.

The council seemed to have a convenient memory lapse in forgetting it was the council itself which had forced her own mother to evict her daughter, throw her out onto the streets with her kids  by threatening to make all of them homeless by taking the council house away from the woman’s own mother. This is a brutally corrupt piece of pure Kafkaesque wickedness on behalf of the council.

Another single mum with three kids had been evicted by her private landlord as revenge because she had asked him to do essential repairs like stop the excessive dampness which was making all the walls and ceilings covered in black mould – which is dangerous to health as it produces lung disease. She was intentionally homeless too, said the council.

I know of another single parent evicted from their house by the fraudulent USA bank Lehmans, who went bankrupt after causing the recent World wide recession by their criminally  dishonest, immoral, grasping and evil banking activities.

The council told that parent too they were ‘intentionally homeless’ on the grounds they shouldn’t have bought their house several years previously by using a mortgage as ‘they ought to have known they would be unlikely ever to work again because they were a single parent’.

I know the councils up and down the country are actually breaking the law ( I’ve checked the legislation) by using this ‘intentional homeless’ nonsense in the way they are, but more of that later.

Then I saw today’s (8th March 2015 BBC) news rabbiting on about the sixty thousand homeless people in New York right now, enduring the coldest winter weather, lots of ice & snow, for decades. New York is always very cold in winter anyway, so this must be awful if you’re living on the streets.

Then the news item featured a single mum in her early thirties working in the financial industry who still didn’t earn enough to afford the stratospheric rents of New York, so she was sharing  hostel accommodation with other homeless families.

This housing crisis is almost entirely caused by the banks ramping up the price of housing so they can lend ever larger sums of money. Housing in the UK is now about eleven times an average salary instead of the three times it was in about 1970 – before the greedy banks got into the business of mortgage lending by destroying most of the building societies.

But what should a house really cost do you think ? The average (slightly approximate) cost of building a new house is about £1200 a square metre. And the average British rabbit hutch of a new house is now only 76 sq metres, not big enough to swing  a cat, (see Daily Mail story here – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535136/Average-British-family-home-size-shrinks-two-square-metres-decade-increasing-numbers-forced-live-flats.html  ).

That would cost £91 200 to build, plus the extra cost of buying the land on which it stands. Agricultural land averages about £10 000 at the moment and with at least 16 tiny little rabbit hutches to the acre the land should cost a miniscule £62 or so, and it did a couple of generations or so ago.

But of course today, the bureaucracy and corruptions of the entire housing market and in particular that Orwellian gem of corruption ‘planning permission’ has made a nonsense of land value to build housing on and consequently it can cost millions per acre.

Apparently the average cost land with building permission per acre is now about £800 000 which makes one building plot to build a tiny rabbit hutch of a house on with the average of 76 sq metres for this type of house, is now about £50 000.

So after adding that extortionate £50 000 cost of the building plot to the build cost of  £91 200 we get the total cost of a new house for £141 200. Actually the average price is about twice that at present. That will be the £141 000 profit for the house builder then !

But, whatever the price new, shouldn’t the cost of a second hand house decrease at least a bit over time just like other second hand, used goods ?

Errrrrr, yes, I should think it ought to and certainly did before property started to become a good wheeze for Spivs & speculators from about 1950 onwards.

So, take my ordinary four bedroomed London terrace house of 200 square metres which would cost about £240 000 to build new today, plus the average cost of £50 000 for the plot of land, that would be £290 000 built new today. But actually the current value is about £1.4 million.

Anyway, back to the real cost of building it at £290 000. If the house lost just one half per cent a year in value ( about £1500 in the first year) the 135 year old house would have lost 67% of its original cost and would be about £194 300 to buy today. Or that rabbit hutch house costing £141 200 today would cost about £94 604 when 135 years old; (except it will never get to be 135 years old because that type of house is generally built so badly & shoddily it is unlikely to have life of barely more than 20 years).

So this example means over a theoretical life of a house off 200 years each inhabitant pays a modest half percent cost of the total building cost which  is £1 500 a year towards the building cost of the London house costing £290 000 to build in 2015. But instead, if you rent that same house today in London you will be paying the 6% of the 2015 ‘value’ the house has of £1 400 000 that landlords expect to rent homes out to tenants for and this will be a cool £84000 a year rent you will paying instead of £1500 previously mentioned.

That’s what it used to be like for centuries until the modern era, when the banks made houses repositories of value, rather than real homes to live in.

Bastards !

So, what with the builders building revoltingly cheap and nasty miniature homes too small even to contain normal necessary possessions and making extortionate profits of up to 100% and even higher, and the banks making billions of pounds out of expensive, often rip-off loans to people to buy homes, the entire country is in the icily corrupt grip of a bunch of thieving sharks really. And at the bottom are the people being forced to live on the streets or in repulsively inhumane  council ‘emergency accommodation’.

 

 

THE SOCIAL ENTERPRISE IDEA TO REVOLUTIONISE THE HOUSING MARKET WITH YOUR SUPPORT

March 27, 2014

Anyone interested in  setting up a housing co-operative to buy housing to then rent to our members along the lines of the idea below ?

 

My idea is to simply set up an organisation which would continuously seek crowdfunding  for redeemable shares offering (at present) about 3-4% which would be used to purchase rentable homes. The redeemable shares would enable savers currently offered laughable savings rates by the banks to be able to use this as a safe and reliable method of  savings offering much better returns than banks.

 

The tenants to which these homes would be rented  would also share in the profit their rent ultimately generates as it pays off the purchase cost. The whole idea is to enable the tenants to build up a sum of money from the profits of the organisation for them to use as a deposit to buy their own home.

 

If the funds borrowed to 100% fund the purchase are fully repaid by means of charging rent, at the end of a term similar to an average type of mortgage of, say 25 years, then at that point the organisation would own the asset outright. It would obviously then be able to offer a portion of the value of that asset to the tenant.

 

This portion would accrue from the moment the tenant commences paying rent and would be available to the tenant whenever he leaves  which could be at any time. He does not have to remain any longer than any initial short tenancy.

 

The tenant would always be paying a ‘market’ rent the same as any other tenant. But he would be getting something back that no other tenant ever does. He will be getting back a portion of the rent he has paid which he can then use as his deposit to go and buy his own home with an ordinary mortgage if he so wishes.

 

Instead of just paying rent to line a landlord’s pocket, tenants would get something back so their rent would be not completely wasted money dow the drain as it normally is for all tenants.

 

This model would thus enable a person with no capital whatever to accrue a deposit for their own home purchase, or even use this organisation to end up either a long leaseholder on  low rent if he wished to remain in the property. It could almost be viewed as a means of just turning an ordinary rental into a (different) type of mortgage for the ultimate purchase of a home. A mortgage where no deposit is needed at all. It’s just a rental that eventually just turns into actual home ownership.

 

It offers a means of home ownership which dis-enfranchises no-one and whereby any tenant turns progressively into an owner.

 

If set up as the legal concept of a Co-op, it is legally allowed to ask the public to invest in redeemable shares which  would pay an interest rate which might currently be 3-4%.

 

This is just a brief description of the idea, obviously there is a lot of detail to ramble on about, but I’ll leave that for  the moment as it isn’t needed until people want to know more and join.

 

Oh, by the way. I have spent a lot of time doing all the maths and the idea does work. You can have a look for yourself if you are interested & contact me.

 

With the help of the crowdfunding crowd, we can cut the legs of those greedy bankers and eventually take all their mortgage business away from them so that every penny people pay to live in a home goes directly towards actually paying for that home and not the huge profits for  greedy bankers.

 

This idea has wings; it could take off and fly !

 

 

 

 

 

BANK ROBBERY – HOW BANKS STEAL FROM EVERYONE

February 1, 2014

Article from the Positive Money Website – the campaign to reform the corrupt and self evidently broken monetary system

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Banking_Vs_Democracy_Web.pdf

Written By: Andrew Jackson and Ben Dyson 

Special thanks to: Anthony Molloy

Produced with the support of The JRSST Charitable Trust

© February 2012 Positive Money

PRIVATISATION BY STEALTH

The common misconception of how banks work is

that they take people’s savings and lend them out

in the form of loans. In this vision, banks merely

operate as the middlemen between savers and

borrowers, but this is simply not what happens.

When a bank makes a loan it does not take the

money out of anyone else’s account. Instead, it

simply creates a new account for the customer and

types a number into it.

When a customer is approved for a loan (of say

£1,000), she signs a contract with the bank obliging

her to pay back £1,000 plus interest over a period

of time. According to accounting conventions, the

£1,000 loan can then be recorded as an asset of the

bank. At the same time the bank opens an account

for the customer and types £1,000 into it. As the

bank owes the customer this money, it is recorded

on the liabilities side of the bank’s balance sheet. By

this process, the bank has simultaneously created

new money in the borrowing customer’s account

and a corresponding debt. The bank’s new asset

(the debt) balances out the new liability (the newly

created money) so that in accounting terms, the

books balance.

The customer now has £1,000 of new money to

spend on whatever they choose. No money was

taken out of anyone else’s bank account. New

money has been created out of nothing.

In the UK, over 97% of the entire money supply was

created in this way and exists in the form of ‘digital’

money, numbers in the bank accounts of members

of the public and businesses.

NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO CUSTOMERS

Unlike pension funds, banks are not required to

disclose how they will use their customers’ money.

As 97% of the UK’s money supply is effectively held

with banks, this allows them to allocate a larger

sum of money than either the entire pension fund

industry or the elected government itself. Conse-

quently the UK economy is shaped by the invest-

ment priorities of the banking sector, rather than

the priorities of society.

Just five banks hold 85% of the UK’s money, and

these five banks are steered by just 78 board

members whose decisions shape the UK economy.

This is a huge amount of power concentrated in very

few hands, with next to no transparency or account-

ability to wider society.

******

It is common knowledge that anyone found printing

their own bank notes can expect to find the police

kicking down the door at two o’clock in the morning.

However, it has only been illegal for individuals and

companies to create their own £5 or £10 notes since

1844.

Prior to 1844, the state had a legal monopoly only

over the creation of metal coins dating from the

time when this had been the only form of money.

But keeping lots of metal and carrying it around was

inconvenient so customers would typically deposit

their metal coins with the local jeweller or goldsmith

who would have secure storage facilities. Eventually

these goldsmiths started to focus more on holding

money and valuables on behalf of customers rather

than on actually working with gold, and thereby

became the first bankers.

A customer depositing coins would be given a piece

of paper stating the value of coins deposited. If the

customer wanted to spend his money, he could take

the piece of paper to the bank, get the coins back,

and then spend them in the high street. However,

the shopkeeper who received the coins would then

most likely take them straight back to the bank. To

avoid this hassle, shopkeepers would simply accept

the paper receipts as payment instead. As long as

the bank that issued the receipts was trusted, busi-

nesses and individuals would be happy to accept the

receipts, safe in the knowledge that they would be

able to get the coins out of the bank whenever they

needed to.

Over time, the paper receipts came to be accepted

as being as good as metal money. People effectively

forgot that they were just a substitute for money

and saw them as being equivalent to the coins.

The goldsmiths then noticed that the bulk of the

coins placed in their vaults would be gathering dust,

suggesting that they were never being taken out.

In fact, only a small percentage of all the deposits

were ever being claimed at any particular time. This

opened up a profit opportunity—if the bank had

£100 in the vault, but customers only ever withdrew

a maximum of £10 on any one day, then the other

£90 in the vault was effectively idle. The goldsmith could lend out that extra £90 to borrowers.

However, the borrowers again would choose to use

the paper receipts as money rather than taking out

the metal coins from the bank. This meant that the

bank could issue paper receipts to other borrowers

without necessarily needing to have many—or even

any—coins in the vault.

The banks had acquired the power to create a substitute for money which people would accept as being money. In effect, they had acquired the power to create money: perhaps this is when the goldsmiths became real bankers.

The profit potential drove bankers to over-issue

their paper receipts and lend excessive amounts,

creating masses of new paper money quite out of

proportion to the actual quantity of state-issued

metal money. As it always inevitably will, blowing

up the money supply pushed up prices and destabi-

lised the economy (of the many crises, particularly

galling was the Bank of England having to borrow £2

million from France in 1839). In 1844, the Conserva-

tive government of the day, led by Sir Robert Peel,

recognised that the problem was that they had

allowed the power to create money to slip into irre-

sponsible private hands and legislated to take back

control over the creation of bank notes through the

Bank Charter Act. This curtailed the private sector’s

right to print money (and eventually phased it out

altogether), transferring this power to the Bank of

England.

However, the 1844 Bank Charter Act only addressed

the creation of paper bank notes. It did not refer to

other substitutes for money. With growth in the use

of cheques, the banks had found another substitute.

When a cheque is used to make a payment, the

actual cash is not withdrawn from the bank. Instead,

the paying bank periodically communicates with the

receiving bank to settle any net difference remaining

between them once all customers’ payments in both

directions have been cancelled out against each

other. This means that payments can be made even

if the bank has only a fraction of the money that

depositors believe they have in their accounts.

Following on in the spirit of financial innovation,

after cheques came credit and debit cards, elec-

tronic fund transfers and internet banking. Cheques

are now almost irrelevant as a means of payment

but over 99% of payments[b] (by value) are made

electronically.

Today the electronic numbers in your bank account

do not represent real money. They simply give you a

right to demand that the bank gives you the physical

cash or makes an electronic payment on your

behalf.

In fact, if you and a lot of other customers

demanded your money back at the same time—a

bank run—it would soon become apparent that

the bank does not actually have your money.

For example, on the 31st of January 2007 banks held

just £12.50 of real money (in the form of electronic

money held at the Bank of England) for every £1000

shown in their customers’ accounts. Even among

those who are aware that what banks do is more

complicated than merely operating as middlemen

between savers and borrowers, there is a wide-

spread belief that banks are obliged to possess a

sum corresponding to a significant fraction of their

liabilities (their customers’ deposits) in liquid assets,

i.e. in cash or a form that can be rapidly converted

into cash. In fact, such laws were emasculated in

the 1980s in response to lobbying from the industry

(although some effort is now being made to

re-impose such rules in the aftermath of the crisis).

When a run starts (like the one on Northern Rock

on the 14th September 2007) it becomes almost

impossible to stop.

Once the bank has paid out any cash which it holds in the branch to individuals (and transferred all of its reserves to other banks) other depositors will have to wait for the bank to sell off its remaining assets before they see their money.

And because the bank has to sell these assets

quickly, it will find it hard to receive a fair price.

Because of this it is unlikely the proceeds from these

sales will cover the value of their deposits and other

liabilities, and therefore most customers are likely to

lose a large proportion of their savings. Because this

type of personal ruin is a tragedy and, even more

importantly, because one bank run is likely to lead

to others (as confidence in the banking system falls

through the floor) the government insures deposits,

guaranteeing some level of payback in the event of

bank failure. Thus, because the system is inherently

unstable, and because almost all of our money

exists on banks’ balance sheets, the banking sector

has to be underwritten and rescued by the taxpayer,

all as a result of the failure of legislation to keep up

with technology and financial innovation since 1844.

******

When money is created, it can be put into the

economy in two ways: it can either be spent in

exchange for goods and services or lent out. When

banks create money, they put most of it into the

economy through lending. Exactly who this newly-

created money is given to is crucial because it will

determine the shape of the economy.

Over the decade leading up to the 2008 financial

crisis, the amount of money lent out by banks

tripled but this steep rise is largely accounted for by

loans advanced for the purposes of buying property

and for financial speculation. The amount dedicated

to productive investment remained more or less

constant throughout this period meaning that the

proportion of the money supply that was dedicated

to enhancing production steadily waned.

*****

Between November 1982 and November 2006 the

banking sector increased the money supply—by

creating new money through lending—by an

average of 10% a year.

Between November 2007 and November

2008, £258 billion of new money was created. If

government were to increase the money supply

at this rate, it would be accused of following the

policies of Zimbabwe, but because few people

understand that banks create money via lending,

this is completely overlooked.

This huge growth in the money supply is hardly

surprising when we consider the incentives that

banks have to increase their lending. In confident

times, all of a banker’s incentives push him to

lend as much as possible: by lending more, they

maximise short-term profits and, more specifically

their own bonuses, commissions and prospects

of promotion and profits. There is no reward for

bankers who are prudent and choose not to lend

or only lend judicious sums. In short, the supply

of money into the economy depends on the confi-

dence and incentives of bankers rather than what is

best for society as a whole.

Investing in machinery to make factories

more efficient is productive investment whilst

lending to buy existing property through mortgages

is non-productive as it simply pushes up house

prices without increasing production.

The £1.16 trillion of new money created by

the banks over the last ten years could have been

used to: pay off the national debt (which currently

stands at around £977 billion); invest in public

transport, hospitals, schools or renewable energy;

or exempt the poorest ten per cent of the popula-

tion from tax. Instead, it has been used by the

banking sector to fuel a housing bubble that has

made buying a home unaffordable for all but the

very rich.

The last few years have proven the business model that enables banks to create money is fundamentally unstable, requiring rescue by the government from time to time.

When this happens, taxpayer funds are diverted

from public spending and spent on salvaging failing

corporations. This further reduces the power of

government to do what it was democratically

elected to do, weakening democracy in the process.

By handing the power to create money over to

the banks, the government reduces its revenue,

compromises its capacity to carry out the activities

that it has been mandated to carry out and under-

mines the potential of the democratic system to

change society for the better.

THE HIDDEN TAX THAT BANKS POCKET

Giving banks the power to create money results in

two hidden and undemocratic ‘taxes’ being levied

on the public.

The first of these ‘taxes’ is inflation, when increases

in the amount of money in the economy feed

through into higher prices. If the money supply

is increased quickly then the new money pushes

up prices, especially in housing to where much of the new lending is destined.

Of course, it is now banks that create the vast

majority of new money. They have increased the

amount of money in the economy at an average of

10% a year between 1981 and 2007, (by lending)

and pumped this money mainly into the housing

market.

As a result, house prices shot out of the

reach of ordinary people, whereas those who got

the ‘first use’ of the money (by borrowing first)

received most of the benefit. Meanwhile those who

were not already on the housing ladder became

significantly poorer, in real terms, because the

relative cost of housing doubled in just 10 years

(between 1997 and 2007).

Consequently, the inflation caused by allowing banks to create money is also effectively a ‘tax’ accruing to the banks (through their increased interest income on ever greater mortgages) and those who borrow early on (to buy property and other assets).

The second of these hidden taxes corresponds to

interest. Because banks create 97% of the UK’s

money supply, essentially through making loans,

the entire money supply is ‘on loan’ from the

banking sector. For every pound created, somebody

somewhere goes one pound into debt and starts

paying interest on it. By virtue of their power

to create money, banks have the right to collect

interest on nearly every pound in existence.

A hidden tax collected by private corporations

because they have a power that most people would

consider—and believe—to be a prerogative of the

state can hardly be considered democratic.

Written By: Andrew Jackson and Ben Dyson

Special thanks to: Anthony Molloy

Produced with the support of The JRSST Charitable Trust

© February 2012 Positive Money

Parliamentary Standards Commission Brands Bankers as Fraudsters and Thieves

May 22, 2013

 

It’s official,  the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standards Commission   told the BBC Two programme ‘Bankers’ this evening that banks have committed fraud and theft on an epic scale.

 

Chairman Mr Andrew Tyrie MP  and the other Parliamentary Commissioners appointed by both houses of Parliament have recently been questioning dishonest, disreputable and disgusting bankers about their greed, immorality and general rip off mentality and bad behaviour.

 

Mr Andrew Tyrie  told the BBC tonight  it was high time that behaviour everyone else normally considered fraud or theft in the ordinary World beyond the fantasists World of the Bankers was now rewarded with branding bankers like the criminals they really are and putting them in jail. Mr Tyrie said he could not recall any bankers ending up wearing orange jump suits in jail so far but he told the BBC that now had to change.

 

Good. Bankers have now been officially exposed as liars and thieves by a Parliamentary Commission. It’s time to make them start paying all of the money they stole back to the people they duped and conned.

 

The Halifax mortgage subsidiary of Lloyds Bank, and Lloyds Bank itself have a few questions concerning fraud and theft I will be asking them at some point.

 

GREED AND EXPLOITATION

December 7, 2006

This is a true story.

There is an organisation called the Birmingham Mudshires Building Demolition Society. It is wholly owned by the Hellifax Building Demolition Society which advertises extensively on television telling everyone trusting enough to believe it that every little extra helps.

What they really mean is not that every little bit extra helps their customers – which is what people think they mean, but that every little bit extra of your money they can persuade you to give them will do very nicely thank you very much towards providing the Hellifax and the Mudshires Board of Directors with an even larger bonus this year and an even more extravagant Christmas lunch at your expense.

Oh, and let’s not forget the shareholders too. I nearly forgot about them. They will do very nicely too from that little bit extra the hardworking and trusting customers can be conned into handing over to the safe keeping of these eminent financial institutions.

It’s a funny thing, but many of the shareholders seem to be Directors on the boards of other financial institutions. Mmmm. I wonder why ?

There’s a lot more to this story. But it is late and I must go to bed and I still haven’t eaten supper yet.It’s nearly midnight already. No lie in tomorrow either, as I have to get my eight year old son up and off to school first thing. I’ll continue this story some other time.

 

Tags:Birmingham, Birmingham Midshires, Building Societies
Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | Leave a Comment »

A RADICAL NEW WAY OF HOME OWNERSHIP

April 15, 2013

April 15  2013

I have an idea !

Well, actually, I partially nicked it from the Co-op movement. It is already up and running; I just want to do it bigger & better, so to speak.

I want to organise an alternative way of  both renting and buying a home. The idea would be to make it easier and cheaper to either rent or buy, completely bypassing the banks and other traditional mortgage lenders or private landlords.

It will almost certainly be a housing Co-op which would be a non profit making organisation with members having an equal say and equal voting rights in how it is run.

My ambition, ideally, is to set up an organisation which will ultimately attract money from Joe public (internet based crowdfunding ?) to assist it’s funding and it will tap the usual mortgage lenders available as well. As time goes on  the organisation will be able to build up it’s own capital and increasing funding abilities. The general aims are:

– To offer an infinitely more reliable and attractive rental model than the vagaries of the current private landlord  buy to let market, whereby tenants can choose to remain tenants on  exceptionally attractive terms compared  with what is currently available in either the private rental market or the social housing market, or they can become homeowners utilising only their rental history if that is their only source of funding.

– To enable tenants to become homeowners by means of using their rental incomes in an appropriate manner, probably exactly similar to a rare but existing model already set up by a housing co-op.

– To actively expand the organisation as far and wide as possible to make it very widely available – ultimately ideally throughout the country.

– To use marketing and publicity skills to do this in order make the public widely aware  of an alternative method of a more ‘user friendly’ concept of accessing housing, sweeping away much of the expensive nonsense which has been largely generated during the past few decades in both the rental market and the house purchase market.

The housing market, whether buying or renting, was utterly different sixty or seventy years ago. Since then layers of utter nonsense have been imposed on it, making it increasingly expensive to either rent or buy. Most of this expensive, restrictive & thoroughly poisonous nonsense has been driven directly and indirectly by the banks who have been the architects responsible for shaping the entire housing market as it currently stands.

Because of this the cost of buying a house has soared from about three times  a person’s annual income to about ten or eleven times today. Equally, rental costs have soared to unaffordable levels too. The only beneficiaries are really only banks and private landlords. All other classes of home occupiers are disadvantaged and will continue to be so until something changes this.

All this is only likely to get worse until the stranglehold of the banks on the housing market is broken. The only way this can be achieved is to provide the sort of alternative I have in mind, whereby, ultimately, funding for housing will be increasing taken away from the banks and put into the hands of existing homeowners and ‘Joe public’ who will find it attractive to place savings to be used to fund home purchase because their savings will be safer than with banks and return a higher amount of interest on any loans made for home purchase than the banks normally pay to savers.

It becomes possible to understand this can be done simply by imagining a private landlord setting up in business to borrow money to buy homes to rent to people and instead of the profit becoming  owned by the landlord, the profit is used only to expand the business and enable the tenants to both rent on far more attractive terms than elsewhere or to eventually own their own home.

I would wish to explore the possibility of turbo boosting what I have in mind by enrolling high profile help from others. Possibly, for example, certain existing housing trusts, charities and others to be considered in due course.

There are ‘social lenders’ out there who lend at low interest rates for housing purposes. And, interest bearing shares can be marketed in a ‘Community Land Trust’.

Is anyone interested in becoming involved in this ?

Here are some interesting web sites to have a look at.

Leave a comment if you might be interested in becoming involved in any way – either by becoming a member or just helping to organise it.

http://www.somerset.coop/landtrust

 

http://www.somerset.coop

http://www.uk.coop 

http://www.co-operative.coop/enterprisehub