Fair point!
1 Like
I can’t remember what I got, and it was only 2 years ago 
I’ve never been that good with maths, but ledgers fried my brain!
You had an amazing mark! 
1 Like
I only took it 6 months ago so fairly fresh in my memory!
Glad it is over with now though - can forget it all!
Cheers! I think once you get going it is pretty “easy”
Surely the repossessed mortgage home was an asset to the bank and not the mortgage holder though?
The bank had it’s money repaid by selling the property for no more than it’s outstanding liability and the former mortgage holder walks away with with nothing no matter how much equity was in the property.
So was the home the mortgage holders asset or the banks?
Just a question. I don’t know the answer.
It is security for the bank, which is slightly different. They can use the security (the property) to pay themselves back. Basically using the customer’s Asset to repay the Liability. (This is only if the Bank uses its power of sale and other bits and bobs, but you get the idea).
Not strictly true, I believe they are under obligation to obtain the best price for it, so they will market and sell it just as you or I would (for the majority of cases) and so if your outstanding mortgage is £100,000 and the house sells for £250,000, the customer will receive £150,000 as the equity of the property.
So in effect, the Property Asset is diluted into cash to pay off the liability and the surplus funds are the customer’s.
1 Like
Argh!
1 Like
The important word there is “own”. Given the average cost of new cars --the Golf now being anywhere from £19K to £37K, the limited lifespan they seem to have these days (how many 10-year-old cars do you see on the roads nowadays?), how many people actually own their cars?
On that note, those who are financing a car, how many have equity in it?
The house is an asset, the mortgage is the liability. Over time the value of the mortgage decreases (assuming it’s a repayment mortgage) so the net equity increases. Of course sometimes the value of the house decreases too hence the term negative equity.
A good point, although of course a great many people do own a car outright, especially when buying used.
1 Like
I’d disagree here and say it’s more about knowing the difference between and appreciating asset and a depreciating asset - if you own it then it is an asset.
I’ve never owed a car thats under 10 years old.
I’ve never bought a car on finance.
The best way to run a car is to pick it up cheap at about 10 years old, let the person that bought it new pay the VAT and all the depreciation. Most people dont buy new cars.
Run it until it dies or the MOT becomes to expensive to get it to pass then junk it and get another car thats 10 years old.
My current car is 12 years old and fine. (sorry but what you said sounded very middle class)
I wouldnt buy anything post 2010 anyway as its full of eletronic junk that goes wrong.
2 Likes
In ten years you might.
3 Likes
I couldn’t buy a car that old. It would drive me mental with the windows constantly misting up, freezing on the inside, road noise and the fear of breaking down every journey to name a few 
2 Likes
Regulatory requirement for lenders to sell the repossessed property for the best price possible. If there is any equity from the sale then this is passed back to the customers. Equally if the lender incurred a loss then they are able to chase you for it.
Completely agree. Depends on the use that you have for a car.
I own my car and rack up over 1000 miles a week (could never get a hire agreement at a sensible cost with this mileage!). It’s more important to have a completely mechanically reliable car and therefore newer. Also, as @Ordog pointed out, it’d drive me up the wall not having some features as I’m using it so much. I certainly take the point about electronics though - every car I’ve had in the last 5 years has had lots of annoying bugs but here’s hoping a standard entertainment system like Apple Car Play will help out in this area for my next car.
If I could use trains/buses more or I didn’t need to travel so much I probably wouldn’t keep replacing it so often.
That said, my car is an asset. It costs me money to buy, to run, to fix, to keep safe, but it gets me to the places I need to be in order to earn a living.
The best way FOR YOU perhaps. It’s certainly not for me.
And for the record, every new car I’ve had since 2010 (4 I think) have never had one failure of ‘electronic junk’. Don’t believe everything you read…
Anyway, to the topic title, my answer is no.
My answer is actually ‘it depends on multiple criteria which can’t possible lead to one definitive answer for every one’ but that’s a bit of a mouthful… 
4 Likes
I’ve just ordered a Tesla, I’m screwed.
(Knew there’d be a thread I could weave this into 
)
2 Likes
Ohh the new one with the really sturdy windows or… 
1 Like
It’ll be fine. I’m not going to take it outside…
1 Like
Dacia Sandaero is the only car left thats just a car and nothing else.
I’m keeping my Polo from 2008 until it becomes a MOT nightmare.
(Yes I would like it if you could buy a brand new lada still) I like alot of bad cars beacuse they are simple and easy to fix and not consumeable items.