Mortgage advisor - new to this site

Wutang_2

happybroker wrote: »

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

I sincerely hope you have a backup career if you think this is the case! :eek:

As a broker you should know that this isn't the case.
quote]

I'm still writing 20 deals a month Ian so backup careers don't really come into mate.

You fail to explain why some body who owes more than their house is worth is not in negative equity.

To help you with your explanation here is the official description of the meaning of the phrase "negative equity";

"Negative equity is a term used to refer to when the value of an asset used to secure a loan is less than the outstanding balance on the loan. A person holding negative equity is said to be upside down."

please enlighten us Ian, I am sure every adviser who gives their time to help people on this site would be intelectually enriched if you could share your wisdom.

Houston, we have a problem!!...

Were the 'Together' mortgages really a 125% security on the property, I know its been a few months since they were knocking about but I think not.

Now apologise and take a look over those 20 written mortgages for this month and make sure you understand what you have sold.

happybroker

do you really think that borrowing more than the cost of an asset to purchase means you are some how in front? read the posts from NR customers and tell them their not in NE, ring NR and ask for a redmeption statement for a together mortgage and see that the whole of the debt is on there. No apology due....you clearly don't understand the first thing about mortgage finance.

I have become tired now of people with a strange view of how mortgage finance works being so full of themselves that they will make personal jibes based on a wholly misinformed percpetion of what is going on around them.

I am a very busy man and very very good at what I do, I assume Wutang that you are not a mortgage adviser given that you have no signature or perhaps you were and have left the industry for some reason (perhaps couldn't cut it?). There seems to have been an influx of posters on this forum over the last couple of months who are more intent on arguing the toss with others as opposed to offering help to those that need it.

I am signing out of this site after this post and will not return until people grow up. It is a shame that the behaviour of cretins who persist in winding people up should do so to the point where the ordinary man in street has to miss out on helpful free advice, I have received many notices of thanks and several PM's on this site for the advice that I have given.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

happybroker wrote: »

I'm still writing 20 deals a month Ian so backup careers don't really come into mate.

You fail to explain why some body who owes more than their house is worth is not in negative equity.

To help you with your explanation here is the official description of the meaning of the phrase "negative equity";

"Negative equity is a term used to refer to when the value of an asset used to secure a loan is less than the outstanding balance on the loan. A person holding negative equity is said to be upside down."

please enlighten us Ian, I am sure every adviser who gives their time to help people on this site would be intelectually enriched if you could share your wisdom.

If somebody borrowed £95,000 on a £100,000 property and £30,000 as an Unsecured Loan Facility (the clue is in the name :rotfl: ), then they have a 95% mortgage and are not in negative equity!

If the property drops in value to a level below the size of the mortgage, THEN they would be in negative equity.

It seems that I haven't 'enlightened' any of the other advisers on here, just you!

Back to school for you matey.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

happybroker wrote: »

do you really think that borrowing more than the cost of an asset to purchase means you are some how in front? read the posts from NR customers and tell them their not in NE, ring NR and ask for a redmeption statement for a together mortgage and see that the whole of the debt is on there. No apology due....you clearly don't understand the first thing about mortgage finance.

The term Mortgage means 'the promise to repay debt secured on property'. The unsecured loan isn't secured! I think you need some more training.

Wutang_2

happybroker wrote: »

I am signing out of this site after this post and will not return until people grow up. It is a shame that the behaviour of cretins who persist in winding people up should do so to the point where the ordinary man in street has to miss out on helpful free advice, I have received many notices of thanks and several PM's on this site for the advice that I have given.

Good!

go and read some training manuals as people are going to continue getting some baaaad information...and no I am not an adviser (well spotted) - I am actually a Shaolin Wu Tang Minister, so watch out!!! (why aren't there any karate icons I could add at the end of this??)

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

Wutang wrote: »

Good!

go and read some training manuals as people are going to continue getting some baaaad information...and no I am not an adviser (well spotted) - I am actually a Shaolin Wu Tang Minister, so watch out!!! (why aren't there any karate icons I could add at the end of this??)

Does this help? He looks a little bit like a Chinese man

Or this one looks like he's doing karate kicks. :j

neverdespairgirl

Wutang wrote: »

For you maybe - when they reappear (which will probably be a long time) just ignore them and let those who can advise 100% properly recommend them.

I'm not a mortgage advisor myself, so I don't advise anyone about them.

The difficulty I have with 100% mortgages is four-fold. Firstly, I think they are bad for the housing market - part of a general pattern of too much cheap credit pushing house prices very high over the last few years.

Secondly, for the individuals concerned, it's worrying that someone takes on a huge liability without being able to save any money themselves first.

Thirdly, again for the individuals, a no-money-down type purchase can well be made too hastily, without thinking through the implications.

Fourthly, any slight tremor in the housing market, and they are stuck in negative equity.

neverdespairgirl

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

Just for the record koexelek, I know you are new to the site, but you'll find that neverdesparegirl isn't a smug poster, she's usually very knowledgeable and is an asset to the site.

How kind! Thank you.

koexelek

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I'm not a mortgage advisor myself, so I don't advise anyone about them.

The difficulty I have with 100% mortgages is four-fold. Firstly, I think they are bad for the housing market - part of a general pattern of too much cheap credit pushing house prices very high over the last few years.

Secondly, for the individuals concerned, it's worrying that someone takes on a huge liability without being able to save any money themselves first.

Thirdly, again for the individuals, a no-money-down type purchase can well be made too hastily, without thinking through the implications.

Fourthly, any slight tremor in the housing market, and they are stuck in negative equity.

All valid points.

100% mortgages work best ( and a lot of people have done very well out of them, now having a lot of equity) in a house market with rising prices.
If a lot of my clients had not had access to 100% mortgages, they would never have been able to buy their homes, and would be forced to rent indefintely

Where prices are stagnant/falling, they are not such a good idea.
Lenders are too worried about falling house prices to take a gamble on them at the moment

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

How kind! Thank you.

You're welcome