Banks To Not Lend You More Of Your Own Money

WTF?_2

penguine wrote: »

Just about anyone could possibly lose their job. If the bank ensures borrowers have a decent deposit, that they're borrowing a reasonable multiple of their salary, and that they take out unemployment insurance, then yes they should go ahead and give them a mortgage. I wouldn't buy a house right now, but if someone in a good financial position wants to do so then they should be allowed to. The fact that some banks were lending to people who were a bad risk up until quite recently, doesn't mean that people who are a good risk should be prevented from buying a house now.

Exactly - a suitably large deposit, say 25%, would not only transfer the risk of falling prices onto the buyer allowing the bank to loan with confidence, but it would prove that the buyer had a bit of financial sense too.

PasturesNew

I don't want to borrow money from the banks.

As for being a taxpayer, not for much longer .... income's about to drop below the income tax threshold, so then I'll only be paying council tax and VAT and fuel duty when I use the car.

kwikbreaks

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Exactly - a suitably large deposit, say 25%, would not only transfer the risk of falling prices onto the buyer allowing the bank to loan with confidence, but it would prove that the buyer had a bit of financial sense too.

To the best of my knowledge you can still get a mortgage if you have a sizeable deposit - I think they may want to see more than 25% but that is understandable enough as next year could easily wipe that off current house prices which are still vastly inflated due to the easy credit of years gone by.

zappahey

kwikbreaks wrote: »

It's not our children's money - theirs will all be taken up repaying Gordon's PFI deals from the last 10 years.

What about the 5 years of PFI deals before that, have they been paid off and I missed it?

Or don't they suit your agenda?

kwikbreaks

I know that the Tories invented PFI but don't know how much their deals amonted to. I strongly suspect that their debts are dwarfed by GB's later ones though.

1echidna

The banks are not awash with money. The money has been thrown into the deleveraging vortex to prevent them being sucked into it, at least for the moment.

chewmylegoff

it's ok, it's just a dailymash article.

WTF?_2

1echidna wrote: »

The banks are not awash with money. The money has been thrown into the deleveraging vortex to prevent them being sucked into it, at least for the moment.

Yeah, the problem is that the media have been woefully inadequate at educating the public as to what has been done with eye-watering amount of their money (not that the public have shown much of an inclination to ask: Football, celeb gossip and the X-factor are all more important it seems).

In fact, there's hardly been any real public debate about this. Just a huge bailout with ongoing debt commitments for open-ended amounts of money and it all explained to the people paying for it with some handwaving and mild media consternation about greedy bankers.

That's pretty appalling, frankly. Doesn't say much about the state of our democracy or the level of financial savvy amongst people at large or the quality of our media. The Daily Mash are not only funny, they are often more informative than the real press.

dazzaofdagenham

FoxtonsRIP wrote: »

We shouldn't give the banks another dime. And the banks shouldn't lend a penny to any homeowner with less than a 40% deposit. That would bring house prices down to a reasonable level where they could start lending again

My brother who has just saved 10% deposit for his first house says thank you

itsnever2lateisit?

If you really need a loan then set up a company with the word 'Bank' in the title Darling-Brown will then lend you all the money you will ever need;)