29 Oct 2014, 11:01am
housing personal finance
by

10 comments

  • October 2014
    M T W T F S S
    « Sep   Nov »
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • Archives

  • Financial Foolhardiness is Forgivable in the young, not old Fogeys

    It’s perfectly understandable at 12 to want to have your cake and eat it, but unseemly after middle age. Taking an interest-only mortgage when you’re 30 is naive, but having one when you’re 60 is wilfully ignorant. The Torygraph seems to be metamorphosing from the journal of retired generals to cheerleader for those growing old disgracefully and a representative for their greedy children. So they fulminate on behalf of the wilfully ignorant

    Take your mortgage to the grave, older borrowers told

    Around 130,00 interest-only mortgages are due to expire every year until 2020, with half facing a shortfall of £71,000 on average, according to the City watchdog. One in 10 borrowers have no repayment plan in place at all.

    It was in the mid 1990s that warnings of endowment shortfalls started going out. I know because I got one of these. So I got on the case of the endowment firm and eventually pursued a claim against them for selling a single fellow a life insurance product. But I was a dumbass, and realised this so I started to overpay the sucker! The eventual result was that this contract I had so foolishly entered to in 1989 which was due to come to the end of its term in February 2014 was discharged early. There’s a case to be made that this is a vaguely stupid thing 1 to do for an early retiree with no income for a while wanting to defer his pension, but fair enough.

    Now there isn’t anything fundamentally wrong in taking out an interest-only mortgage in your 30s as you are buying for the first time, if you expect to earn more as time goes by, or indeed spend less. From a high-level tragedy of the commons viewpoint it is a stupid thing for us to do collectively; if Help to Buy, interest-only, shared ownership and all the other methods of paying more than you can afford for a house were disallowed, or we had decent credit controls, then the market would settle at a level that most buyers could actually afford. But that’s a different story.

    So the latest that somebody could take out an interest-only mortgage without being aware that this is the purest form of renting money from a bank is probably 2000, and these are presumably people whose parents look like this

    A terribly disturbing reflection to see in the bathroom mirror for 15 years, no?

    A terribly disturbing reflection to see in the bathroom mirror for 15 years, no?

    if they haven’t jumped to the fact that they have a serious problem when more than halfway through the terms of their mortgages. If they haven’t paid off any of their capital, then they are living beyond their means, and we all know from the old boy Mr Micawber what happens then

    Result misery

    Now it is true that you get a bit more hidebound as you get older, and you become  more reluctant to up sticks and move. The human animal is a wondrous marvel of evolution/chance/creation, something, anyway. You really owe it to your forebears to honour all the work and the chances they took to create a rich, First-World country where you have many things that people used to sweat for handed you on a plate to make use of that to at least try and become wiser as you get older.

    So if you want to stay in the house you raised your children in, rattling around the empty spaces full of memories then damn well pay off your mortgage, because ownership of an asset gives you control. If you don’t want to do that, then FFS downsize, if only because that house you raised children in could be used by people of your children’s generation to raise their kids in, and you will find it more and more expensive to heat, clean and maintain unless you are rich enough to pay over the odds for your consumption.

    Speaking on behalf of the greedy children, the Telegraph asks

    Would you agree to die in debt?

    What’s actually wrong with that? Why the bloody hell not – it isn’t like the debt would be a claim upon the assets of your heirs. Obviously they don’t get to inherit anything, but there isn’t anything that terrible about this, from the deceased’s point of view. What’s wrong with it is the wider picture. If you’re of working age, no money and live in a house you don’t own  that’s too big for you then people will give you a hard time until you move or  become rich enough to afford the privilege. Get past that, even if you rent your house from a bank and not a landlord, then you are home and dry.

    We flog ourselves to tie up such a large part of our lifetime earnings in a mute capital asset largely because we haven’t worked out a better way of manage the physical assets of the world for the transitory existence of humans 2. In the UK, the renting a house option is so heavily loaded it’s a ghastly alternative to renting the money. An interest-only mortgage is a good way of getting better security of tenure, because paradoxically the 25 year terms on renting money from a bank seem to be a hell of a lot better than the six months AST terms on renting a house from a landlord. In which case why not rent the money, but the 25 year term still comes to an end one day.

    The Torygraph is wrong:

    Experts said lenders were compromising by creating lifetime mortgages which allowed older couples to stay in their homes if they promised the keys would go to the lender, rather than a family member, on death.

    However, borrowers should see the new mortgages as a “last resort”, the experts said.

    They think this is terrible because the kids don’t get to own a family asset that was never in the family in the first place. There’s nothing wrong in penalising foolhardiness in the old. Folly should have consequences. If you want to featherbed your kids and not have to move from the family home/ancestral seat of residence then FFS go on fewer cruises and pay off your mortgage, it’s not hard to understand!

    Notes:

    1. There seems to be no limit to ways a Ermine can screw up anything that involves property but I don’t regard it as a calamity and I’m prepared to pay for my folly by paying 5% on the money I borrow for a few months rather than 2% on a mortgage
    2. The luxury watch brand Patek Philippe had an ad running  “You never actually own a PP. You merely look after it for the next generation.”  The ad is absolute poppycock targeted to aspirational wannabes but could be applied to houses, or the world – anything of value that lasts longer than a lifetime. Houses in the UK can last four or five human lifetimes before they become slum clearance, so having to own the whole thing is inefficient in some ways
     
  • Recent Posts

  • Subscribe to Simple Living In Somerset via Email

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.