House prices down to at least 115K... Thans FSA! 3X here we come!

piggeh

Really2 wrote: »

Is it Really my fault I don't live in the centre of london?

I would surgest the average wage in SE1 was above the UK.

Some areas have more to fall than others. I thought most people expected that anyway.

I appreciate you're not in London, but you were saying that 3x + 5% deposit could get you on the housing ladder. It's not true in the SE (outside of central London) and I would doubt that an average worker could really get on the housing market with a 3x mortgage anywhere in the country.

Of course it is not just the 'average' wage either but what's the average FTB wage.

FWIW I think the article is a bit sensationalist anyhow and until something is formally announced needs to be taken with a heavy pinch of salt.

Really2

piggeh wrote: »

I appreciate you're not in London, but you were saying that 3x + 5% deposit could get you on the housing ladder. It's not true in the SE (outside of central London) and I would doubt that an average worker could really get on the housing market with a 3x mortgage anywhere in the country.

Of course it is not just the 'average' wage either but what's the average FTB wage.

FWIW I think the article is a bit sensationalist anyhow and until something is formally announced needs to be taken with a heavy pinch of salt.

I agree and that is what I have said in the thread.

stevetodd

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Why should someone with a bigger deposit be entitled to a bigger multiple? It doesnt make any sense! It doesnt exactly make their bigger mortgage payments more affordable does it?

No, but if you look at it from the lenders perspective the risk is greater for those with a smaller deposit

Really2

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Why should someone with a bigger deposit be entitled to a bigger multiple? It doesnt make any sense! It doesnt exactly make their bigger mortgage payments more affordable does it?

Risk, if the bank as covered its risk (not losing money on default with a large deposit) it allows the client to increase theirs.

Are you not looking for a pay rise in the next 25 years?

mbga9pgf

But should they then take a bigger risk based on the fact they have an equity buffer?

If they want true stabilisation long term in the market, this needs to be across the board. That may not suit the pr*cks that wanted an easy penny off te misery of others, but they can go to hell anyway.

If a 27 year old with no employment in finance before can figure this out, then I am sure can a veracious FSA. Banking is about to get boring again! Whoo!

Are you not looking for a pay rise in the next 25 years?

Arent first time buyers either? If my pay rises over 25 years, so will the mortgage I can afford. Fr!gging it to suit current home owners will not do. Sorry, you can borrow yourself to a lifetime of debt, I have no interest in that for me or my children thanks.

All we are doing is returning to historic multiples, like we had traditionally. it is going to be painful, yes, but its for the benefit of the country for the long-term. The sort of difficult decisions that governments need to make, and tend to make during the last few months of them being in power.

Really2

mbga9pgf wrote: »

But should they then take a bigger risk based on the fact they have an equity buffer?

If they want true stabilisation long term in the market, this needs to be across the board.

If a 27 year old with no employment in finance before can figure this out, then I am sure can a veracious FSA. Banking is about to get boring again! Whoo!



Arent first time buyers either? If my pay rises over 25 years, so will the mortgage I can afford. Fr!gging it to suit current home owners will not do. Sorry, you can borrow yourself to a lifetime of debt, I have no interest in that for me or my children thanks.

All we are doing is returning to historic multiples, like we had traditionally. it is going to be painful, yes, but its for the benefit of the country for the long-term. The sort of difficult decisions that governments need to make, and tend to make during the last few months of them being in power.

I have already said this is just pre 04 lending criteria.

Belive me not being able to see a link between low LTV and increased multiple does not make you a financial wizkid.:p

As long as the bank gets it's money back of course it will alow the borrower to take some risk.

Otherwise are we not going to do business lending anymore?

whathavewedone

You think the government want/care about long term stabilisation?

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

All any of them want is votes

Really2

whathavewedone wrote: »

All any of them want is votes

And your money.;)

mbga9pgf

Belive me not being able to see a link between low LTV and increased multiple does not make you a financial wizkid.

No, I can see it, its just frankly F*cking stupid.

Otherwise are we not going to do business lending anymore?

Yes, of course they will but risk vs return will mean bank profits will be lower as opposed to destroying a world economy by pumping it full of debt...

chucky

GDB2222 wrote: »

But it is quite clear what it says, ie that 3x salary would be the norm for all mortgages, apart from 'exceptional circumstances'.

It says separately that the min deposit will be 5%.

so if i have £400k in cash and a salary of only £40k i can only buy a property 3 times my salary. that £400k is certainly more than a 5% deposit. what kind of logic is that??

some people really do live in a fantasy world