How do I get my Dad off my back?

inspector_monkfish

izzybusy23 wrote: »

done at 2 x my partners wage and 1.5 my wage.. so that makes 3.5 x wage..

err, no that makes 1.833 x (joint) wage :cool:

System

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

err, no that makes 1.833 x (joint) wage :cool:

Indeed, someone failed maths.

Dan:_4

izzybusy23 wrote: »

Sorry Dan, but what CR&P!!!! I have had two mortages in the past, one on a flat the other on a house and both were done at 2 x my partners wage and 1.5 my wage.. (edited for Mr Monkfish) which goes to prove that you didn't need stupid multiples to get mortgages.. 3.5 wage was always the norm.. how old are you... your remarks suggest in your twenties if you cannot remember the 3.5 wage rule. :rolleyes:

Your past mortgage multiples for yourself and your partner does not prove diddly !!!!!!. The 3.5 rule never has been, and never will be a 'maximum' you can borrow, but a general guideline. The actual figure will depend on a lot of other factors, such as credit rating, amount of debt already, number of dependents, size of deposit, mortgage product, disposable income, additional income to name a few.

JayScottGreenspan

Dan: wrote: »

Your past mortgage multiples for yourself and your partner does not prove diddly !!!!!!. The 3.5 rule never has been, and never will be a 'maximum' you can borrow, but a general guideline. The actual figure will depend on a lot of other factors, such as credit rating, amount of debt already, number of dependents, size of deposit, mortgage product, disposable income, additional income to name a few.

But the general guideline most banks followed was 3.5x. Sometimes the bank manager might have been persuaded to go to 4x, but only if you were a doctor or professional or something and looking at very decent pay increases, and only if s/he liked the cut of your jib.

Dan:_4

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

But the general guideline most banks followed was 3.5x. Sometimes the bank manager might have been persuaded to go to 4x, but only if you were a doctor or professional or something and looking at very decent pay increases, and only if s/he liked the cut of your jib.

There are many other factors then just your profession and jib.

Stability, how long you been in job, buying with spouse, financial past, etc. This is no different to how it is done today.

Chris2685

I feel sorry for the OP that this has gone so off topic... It was an interesting subject until you have to sift through the amount of crappy in-fighting going on between members in here...

Yakubu22

Dan: wrote: »

Your past mortgage multiples for yourself and your partner does not prove diddly !!!!!!. The 3.5 rule never has been, and never will be a 'maximum' you can borrow, but a general guideline. The actual figure will depend on a lot of other factors, such as credit rating, amount of debt already, number of dependents, size of deposit, mortgage product, disposable income, additional income to name a few.

Dan, there may not have been a concrete rule in which historically nobody could borrow more than 3x to possibly 3.5x salary. However that was the standard ratio in which you worked with. Unless there was other exceptional factors the Bank Manager wouldn't increase this at all.
To suggest that FTBs (or people who have to work for all their money) today only borrow the same equivalent debt as they did 20-30 years ago is incorrect.

chucky

izzybusy23 wrote: »

Sorry Dan, but what CR&P!!!! I have had two mortages in the past, one on a flat the other on a house and both were done at 2 x my partners wage and 1.5 my wage.. (edited for Mr Monkfish) which goes to prove that you didn't need stupid multiples to get mortgages.. 3.5 wage was always the norm.. how old are you... your remarks suggest in your twenties if you cannot remember the 3.5 wage rule. :rolleyes:

no Izzy - the 3.5 salary multiplier was only ever a guideline.

a bank manager would go higher than this depending on the borrower - for example a graduate or somebody who's career would provide them a higehr salary in the future - a doctor for example.

from hearing from friends and family there were some banks who offered slightly higher multiples but not in the same way that Northern Rock may have done.

Tozer

chucky wrote: »

no Izzy - the 3.5 salary multiplier was only ever a guideline.

a bank manager would go higher than this depending on the borrower - for example a graduate or somebody who's career would provide them a higehr salary in the future - a doctor for example.

from hearing from friends and family there were some banks who offered slightly higher multiples but not in the same way that Northern Rock may have done.

Totally agreed. My first mortgage was on a multiple of nearly 5 times current salary. At the time I was a trainee solicitor with qualification only a few months away together with a 50% pay rise.

Frankly, you wouldn't need underwriters if it was all done on absolute lending criteria. What a dull world it would be as well. I certainly wouldn't have been able to get my first house at a fairly young age.

As others have said, underwriting criteria should be guidelines based but with subjective criteria being the ultimate decider.

System

Tozer wrote: »

As others have said, underwriting criteria should be guidelines based but with subjective criteria being the ultimate decider.

In a nutshell