Permanent ban on 100% mortgages (merged)

HelpWhereIcan

SGE1 wrote: »

You're right, most people can't save 25k, but I think the message is not so much that a high deposit will be required, but more that some deposit will be required. I'd be happy for 99% LTV to be widespread, because at least it demonstrates a willingness on the part of the borrower to contribute, if only with a few thousand £s. I definitely don't think that a minimum deposit level should be introduced, but I think the idea that there should be some deposit is the right one.

Funnily enough this used to be a good way to get someone through the credit score a 100% mortgage.

Putting in between £500 and £1000 (or up to 1% if higher) as a deposit could work wonders on an application.

HelpWhereIcan

mewbie wrote: »

Ah an artifical one. That explains a lot. War injury?

or ... active imagination? wishful thinking? delusions of grandeur?

I've got it ... p€nis envy

HelpWhereIcan

lostinrates wrote: »

Just thinking about this, and venturing in that dangerous territory of lack of knowledge.....

....what about child trust funds as the deposits of the FTB of tommorrow? If adaquately invested could they function as a deposit?

and added to - yes!

piggeh

I think they should put in place mechanisms so that if a bank fails, then it can be allowed to fail. Then we will start to see them act more prudently. The current state is basically signalling to them that they can lose however many billions, they wont be allowed to fail at the end of the day. Even if you limit mortgage lending to 90% LTV, there are still the foreign markets which banks could potentially invest in and end up in the same mess. The problem is not the 100% mortgages but the bank's attitudes on the whole and the 100% mortgages in the UK are not why RBS, Northern Rock etc, are in trouble.

MyLastFiver

lostinrates wrote: »

....what about child trust funds as the deposits of the FTB of tommorrow? If adaquately invested could they function as a deposit?

Yes, but:

1. Only the middle-class children of families with money left over every month will benefit, and...

2. The Tories have said they're going to abolish CTFs when they get in.

See? The b@stards are still in opposition but already they're planning new ways to dismantle social policy to fund tax cuts for the rich.

Jennifer_Jane

amcluesent wrote: »

Typical Clown/socialist interference with the market for an easy headline about yet another 'initiative'; just wait to see what blow-back there is from the law of unintended consequences.

Why don't they do something useful like abolish their hopeless HIPs. Oh wait, that brings in VAT and keeps council droobs in "work"!

If, by some chance, they really wanted to help the market then reform the nonsensical buying process.

Thanked amcluesent because of the HIPs comment. Wish they would get rid of this, but they never can without losing face. Has it worked? Has it improved house sales? Until the Governmet can understand that there is a far simpler model for housebuying (not the Scottish way), there's no hope. Why does everything have to be over-engineered (thinking pension reform as well).

I don't agree with legislation for 100% mortgages, but clearly we will have this come back to us in due course when justifying themselves for the next election: 'Oh and it was me who brought in the legislation...' hoping that people will have forgotten it was too little, too late. I've seen it before with this crowd (unsure about the previous ones as wasn't in the Country) for instance Brown's saying proudly that he had reduced basic tax rates (whilst forgetting he had increased tax for the poorest people. They eventually had to increase the personal allowance to compensate)

I despair!

Jen
x

lostinrates

MyLastFiver wrote: »

Yes, but:

1. Only the middle-class children of families with money left over every month will benefit, and...

2. The Tories have said they're going to abolish CTFs when they get in.

See? The b@stards are still in opposition but already they're planning new ways to dismantle social policy to fund tax cuts for the rich.

I've never made my mind up how I feel about the child trust fund thingies....just thought it would be a possibilty for those who WEREN't from 'middle class backgrunds'.

Thinking about it, personally I'd rather the money were invested in the children's health and education so they can make more themselves (or perhaps be means tested).

SGE1

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

sort of. SGE bit the first one off.

Hey, that's not fair. I barely touched it and it fell off on its own. Must have been the gangrene.

dezmond76

There would be no need for 100% mortgages if the average FAMILY home was reasonably priced. By reasonably priced I mean 3.5x the median salary which would see an average house price at around £65k to £85k.

This would mean that a FTB looking for a family home would only need to save a deposit of around £6k to £9k for a 90% LTV mortgage. Not that difficult to achieve.

BTW, that's exactly the path we are headed

MyLastFiver

lostinrates wrote: »

I've never made my mind up how I feel about the child trust fund thingies....just thought it would be a possibilty for those who WEREN't from 'middle class backgrunds'.

It's a brilliant scheme, and even if not added to, will still provide every child with something when they turn 18.

Thinking about it, personally I'd rather the money were invested in the children's health and education

That's the Tories' argument, but don't be fooled.