Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
In Norway the "Boligbyggelag" is a quasi-Coop organisation which is similar to the Danish Andelsboligforeninger.

The deal is that an individual "buyer" pays an entrance fee at a fairly low rate and they are then liable for a proportional share in a collective mortgage loan which typically finances most of the building.

This collective mortgage was subject to a form of insurance against individual defaults.

This model has worked extremely well since the Second World War generally funded by the State owned HusBanken but often sponsored or co-financed by municipalities, typically by providing the land.

About three or four years ago, as a way of allowing people onto the "housing ladder" these vehicles were opened up to developers who promptly built overpriced buildings and aggressively marketed them to young buyers in particular.

The buyers borrowed the "entrance fee" - say £50,000 to £100,000 from private banks - and the banks ignored the fact that the buyers were also taking on the collective debt.

To make matters worse, most of this new generation of Boligbyggelag did not have an insurance bond.

This is all now going drastically "pear-shaped" as a specifically Norwegian variation of sub prime.

Firstly, there is a "Death Spiral" effect, whereby when  one person defaults, and "walks away", the rest of the co-owners are then sharing his part of the  mortgage as well as their own.

Most of these projects are in huge negative equity, and indeed membership cannot even be given away, due to the onerous nature of the collective liability.

Many individuals have complained to the Banking Ombudsman, and already many of the individual private bank loans have been cancelled as a result.

Three different Norwegian ministries are trying to work out solutions to the problem.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 01:57:37 PM EST
Thanks for the update... That sounds grisly, and I guess it's something of that kind that I was groping for when I mentioned the fact that the up-front entrance fee is often an order of magnitude less than a traditional mortgage.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 02:03:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Any structure in which there is a high degree of leverage wipes out all of the equity very very fast when absolute prices roll back.

Allowing banks to make loans to unqualified people is the root of the housing bubble mess.  Throw gasoline on the fire in the form of back end loaded re-payments and you get a conflagration.  

by HiD on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 07:50:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
HiD:
Allowing banks to make loans to unqualified people is the root of the housing bubble mess.

Allowing credit institutions to create credit based upon a trivial amount of capital in order to allow individuals to buy pre-existing assets is at the root of all bubbles.

The requirement by the shareholders of credit institutions for continual growth of profits means in turn that when the market of "credit worthy" people is saturated, they have to extend it in one way or another to "unqualified" people, as you say.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 05:15:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Shareholders don't require constant profit growth.  That was mostly management trying to make their stock options into vast riches.  Well run banks didn't play this game (check out HCBK - stock price is UP during the meltdown).

Capital requirements are not trivial.  You only look at liquidity instead of the whole balance sheet.  But that fits your religious view of usury.  If capital requirements were trivial, how come the banking system has lost roughly 150 to $500 Billion dollars?  Should have been pocket change no?

by HiD on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 08:34:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
HiD:
Shareholders don't require constant profit growth.  

Eh?

"Shareholder Value" is part of the religion. You tell me how long the average CEO would last if his shareholders did not see profit growth?

HiD:

Capital requirements are not trivial.  You only look at liquidity instead of the whole balance sheet.  But that fits your religious view of usury.  If capital requirements were trivial, how come the banking system has lost roughly 150 to $500 Billion dollars?  Should have been pocket change no?

Bank capital requirements are a maximimum of 8%.  

Trivial.

The balance of 92% of credit = money created on the back of this capital is backed by nothing other than government fiat and trust. That is a matter of assets and liabilities and therefore a balance sheet question, not just a liquidity question.

As for your use of the phrase "religious view of usury" I would neither dream of using the word usury nor are any of my views "religious". "Ethical" - well I hope so - but "religious", never.

I believe that equitable sharing of risk and reward is both optimal and ethical.

Secured Debt does not share risk and reward equitably IMHO, and neither does the legal construct known as the Joint Stock Limited Liability Company.

The conflicted combination of Debt and Equity which are the "Twin Peaks" of finance capital are sub optimal, I believe and will come to be replaced by something better.

You have your set of values and I have mine.

End of story.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 09:10:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This collective mortgage was subject to a form of insurance against individual defaults.  

Making them an ideal target for teaser-rate scammers.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Tue Jul 15th, 2008 at 03:58:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series