Stamp duty

[King Billy]

What does that mean? How is it applicable?

How is it related to what Mottie said as opposed to what KB said and what makes it different?

With his extensive knowledge of the market, he's conflated two different schemes.
Shared Equity is when you buy a property with someone else, e.g. cohabiting partners, or young buyers on a partnership mortgage.
Equity Release, we've been discussing. There's two basic types: Lifetime Mortgage and Home Reversion Plans.
There's no such thing as a "Shared Equity Release scheme".
MBK at his finest.

 

[motorbiking]

What does that mean? How is it applicable?

How is it related to what Mottie said as opposed to what KB said and what makes it different?

You sell a portion of your home to the provider who applies a multiplier to their stake.

They now have a share of the equity. Usually 1.5 to 2 times.

A home reversion plan is an example. I provided links already for Himmy to educate himself.

 

[motorbiking]

With his extensive knowledge of the market, he's conflated two different schemes.
Shared Equity is when you buy a property with someone else, e.g. cohabiting partners, or young buyers on a partnership mortgage.
Equity Release, we've been discussing. There's two basic types: Lifetime Mortgage and Home Reversion Plans.
There's no such thing as a "Shared Equity Release scheme".
MBK at his finest.

Glad you read the links I provided.

 

[noseall]

You sell a portion of your home to the provider who applies a multiplier to their stake.

They now have a share of the equity. Usually 1.5 to 2 times.

A home reversion plan is an example.

I didn't ask about that.

I want to know why you inserted irrelevance...

An entirely different financial arrangement than a shared equity release scheme.

..into the thread?

 

[motorbiking]

It’s exactly what you asked.

Mottie posted the example on page 3. Himmy jumped in arguing the numbers didn’t stack up, without any knowledge of the different types of scheme available. Once he understood that there are models where the equity is shared, he started his diversion. You jumped in for a fight face first as usual.

 

[noseall]

Mottie posted the example on page 3. Himmy jumped in arguing the numbers didn’t stack up, without any knowledge of the different types of scheme available.

Why post about different types of equity release in relation to Motties post? It's just more typical MBK deflective irrelevant waffle.

An entirely different financial arrangement than a shared equity release scheme.

^^^^^^^
Irrelevant waffle.

You jumped in for a fight face first as usual.

Nonsense. I pointed out that pensioners that sit on a valuable asset can release equity from that asset to free up some cash. Then you and others started waffling about scams, and different types of equity release, dummy.

 

[motorbiking]

Why post about different types of equity release in relation to Motties post? It's just more typical MBK deflective irrelevant waffle.

Because the shared equity example matched the scenario Mottie described. dummy

^^^^^^^
Irrelevant waffle.

Has nosenout been told off for misquoting? About time.

Nonsense. I pointed out that pensioners that sit on a valuable asset can release equity from that asset to free up some cash. Then you and others started waffling about scams, and different types of equity release, dummy.

But it's the Asset that needs freeing up, according to the person arguing that stamp duty clogs the system. if you'd bother to watch the video that had restarted this thread, you'd have understood that. dumb dumb

 

[King Billy]

You sell a portion of your home to the provider who applies a multiplier to their stake.

They now have a share of the equity. Usually 1.5 to 2 times.

A home reversion plan is an example. I provided links already for Himmy to educate himself.

Yes there is an element of equity sharing in the Home Reversion scheme,
Bu to call it a Shared Equity Release scheme conflates two different schemes and confuses the public. (and poorly educated wannabe experts )

 

[King Billy]

Glad you read the links I provided.

I didn't and I didn't need to.

 

[King Billy]

It’s exactly what you asked.

Mottie posted the example on page 3. Himmy jumped in arguing the numbers didn’t stack up, without any knowledge of the different types of scheme available. Once he understood that there are models where the equity is shared, he started his diversion. You jumped in for a fight face first as usual.

The figures in Mottie's anecdote did not stack up, on first reading. It was only when he clarified/embroidered his anecdote that it became clear.

As he didn't initially include a time frame in his anecdote, nor what the £50k referred to, it fell to the reader to make assumptions, which is normal when information is incomplete, in order to verify the narrative.
In Mottie's anecdote, it only became clear which scheme was involved when he clarified the purpose of the £50k payment, and the residual £300k from the sale.
Even in Home Reversion schemes there are usually clauses that negate the ERC, such as going into permanent long-term care.
So that ERC might have been avoided.
In my presentation of a lifetime mortgage over my assumed time frame, the figures would stack up, except for the apparent loss of £300k. Which is why I asked for the presented figures to be verified.
You also demonstrated ignorance of having a lump sum of cash available for emergencies as an irrelevance and not needed.

Since Motties presentation of his anecdote you've been desperately trying to argue that it is my knowledge of the market that is non-existent, but you've demonstrated your own ignorance of the market with your referral to "Shared Equity Release scheme", and your ignorance of waiving the ERC.

 

[King Billy]

Because the shared equity example matched the scenario

You made your assumptions about the missing information, the purpose of the £50k and the no need of a lump sum for emergencies.
You invented a term which conflated and confused two different schemes.

I made my assumption that equally fitted the anecdote, except for the possibility of an error in the figures given. So I asked for the figures to be verified.

You've constantly argued that my assumption, and required verification of the figures, was caused by ignorance.
That's yout normal; combative style of desperately trying to prove your presumed superior knowledge. Instead it suggests your inherent inferiority complex, always trying to prove yourself, refusing to acknowledge your mistakes, and avoiding explaining your invented incorrect terminology.

 

[Mottie]

As he didn't initially include a time frame in his anecdote, nor what the £50k referred to, it fell to the reader to make assumptions,

No one else made any assumptions.

Even in Home Reversion schemes there are usually clauses that negate the ERC, such as going into permanent long-term care.
So that ERC might have been avoided.

She moved in with one of her children who lived 60 miles away, she didn’t go into care. Anything else you need to know so that you can sleep soundly tonight?

 

[motorbiking]

Yes there is an element of equity sharing in the Home Reversion scheme,
Bu to call it a Shared Equity Release scheme conflates two different schemes and confuses the public. (and poorly educated wannabe experts )

The title case was your own invention. I described a shared equity release scheme as a shared equity release scheme. You have acknowledged there is an element of shared equity in the particular equity release scheme. It’s a perfectly valid description to describe an equity release scheme that results in shared equity.

 

[King Billy]

No one else made any assumptions.

Of course they did.

Our friends parents took out £30k equity release years ago and…….. stuck it in the bank! When the mum sold their house a year ago to move in with them, it sold for £650k. They had to pay £50k because she hadn’t died and only ended up walking away with £300k. What idiots!

is an assumption, unless you were so intimately aware of your friends finances.

It’s an absolute scam and withdrawing the money to put in savings is the dumbest thing ever.

Is an assumption, unless MBK is so intimately aware of your friends finances.

You are taking out a loan with zero repayment and charges and fees loaded on at between 6.5 - 8%. That is on top of any “equity” growth clause that allows them a slice of increases.

Is an assumption that it was a Home Reversion scheme, unless MBK knew the details of the scheme, because you never said what type of scheme it was.
In addition, in a Home Reversion scheme it's not a loan, you're actually selling some of the equity. There's no repayment of any loan required. In a Home Reversion scheme and if the house is worth less at the end, the Buyer of part of the equity takes the hit. They take the percentage relating to the percentage purchased, whether it' more or less.
If it's a loan it's a Lifetime Mortgage, and the loan is repayable.
So MBK is getting himself all confused.

It sounds like

Is an assumption.

They didn’t even need it

You are either acutely familiar with your friends' and their parents' finances, or you're making it up as you go along, or you are making an assumption.

She moved in with one of her children who lived 60 miles away, she didn’t go into care.

And they didn't think to class it as necessary for her long-term care?
Or are you making an assumption?

 

[Mottie]

Of course they did.

is an assumption, unless you were so intimately aware of your friends finances.


Is an assumption, unless MBK is so intimately aware of your friends finances.


Is an assumption that it was a Home Reversion scheme, unless MBK knew the details of the scheme, because you never said what type of scheme it was.
In addition, in a Home Reversion scheme it's not a loan, you're actually selling some of the equity. There's no repayment of any loan required. In a Home Reversion scheme and if the house is worth less at the end, the Buyer of part of the equity takes the hit. They take the percentage relating to the percentage purchased, whether it' more or less.
If it's a loan it's a Lifetime Mortgage, and the loan is repayable.
So MBK is getting himself all confused.


Is an assumption.


You are either acutely familiar with your friends' and their parents' finances, or you're making it up as you go along, or you are making an assumption.



And they didn't think to class it as necessary for her long-term care?
Or are you making an assumption?

FFS. It was my mates mother in law. He told me everything. He is intimately aware of his mother in laws finances. His wife and her brother have a financial POA for their mother. I had no need to assume anything. I don't care what you assume or what you believe. You are wrong, you know nothing about them. Give it a rest, you’re coming across as one argumentative ****. You are just trying to dig yourself out of the hole you are in. I’ll not be discussing this with you any further.