Banks will only lend to well-off homeowners. That’s bad news for first-time buyers

Really2

marklv wrote: »

surely we need to limit it to 20 years?

But you could just keep doing 20 years each time you re-mortgage.

I don't have a problem with mortgage length as long as it does not go past retirement age.

lostinrates

marklv wrote: »

; 25 years is a hugely long time, surely we need to limit it to 20 years?

Even though people are living and working longer?

abinanthanb

FallenAngel9898 wrote: »

It's no real surprise, the money doesn't exist anymore, either to lend FTB'rs with little or no deposit, or to keep property at current levels. My opinion is there should be much less debt than is around today, it's caused untold misery to large swathes of the population, I for one would like to see at least 20% deposit as a mandatory minimum deposit for all purchases and 50% deposit if it's a BTL purchase.

It would teach prospective homeowners the value of money and it teach BTL'rs that they should be gambling with their own money and not someone elses.

This sounds as bad as the 100 or 125% LTV mortgages! Implementing this would cut down the mortgage market by more than half. Why would a bank do this?

LydiaJ

chucky wrote: »

if you take the period after 1982 on the above chart and compare it to the below it is similar... which means that we are now in the Return to Mean stage...

Dippychick's graph is a graph of % change. The Rodrigue graph is a graph of prices. Even if they were the same shape, they wouldn't mean the same thing because they're not the same kind of graph.

chopperharris

Early 90s I had to get a 33 percent deposit for a 2 bed flat based on my wages but not that of my gf whom only worked part time.

flat was 21k then , now I beleive they are around 65-75 k mark.

Saved every penny for 2 years , no hols , no treats no car etc.

If I had bought one I could aford without a deposit it would have been in a rough area , somewhere where pitbulls wont go unless in numbers and tooled up to the one eyeball that hasnt been removed.

IF a first time buyer cant get on the ladder then the answer is simple , save , look outside your "desired" area , dont blast 15k on a wedding use contraception.

Really2

LydiaJ wrote: »

The Rodrigue graph is a graph of prices.

So the mean is the trend line then on the nationwide graph.;)

Dan:_4

FallenAngel9898 wrote: »

If you wanted an I/O mortgage, a repayment vehicle had to be in place, and proved.

You could always cancel it after the mortgage has gone through :beer:

shakerbaby

As this is one of Chunkys threads there is no point in letting hard cold facts get in the way of his bear baiting.

Mips

There were clauses though weren't there, so that you couldn't cancel and had to have the repayment vehicle?

Now lenders will let you take an IO mortgage out without repayment vehicles.. it is wrong really, as people really have no idea how they are going to pay it, thus either selling their houses or taking ER.

Dan:_4

FallenAngel9898 wrote: »

True Dan, I was going to say why would people do that, they would have to be financially senile, but many people would do it I'm sure, just as many people borrowed the deposit for their house on a credit card..... unbelieveable, but it happens.

It is unbelievable.

Infact I got a Personal Loan to cover the deposit to buy my first ever house back in late 90s.

I have always been Interest Only (and always will be) and have never had a repayment vehicle as such, but normally pay a nice lump sum off when a fixed rate period ends. If all else fails I will get a tax-free lump sum when I'm 60 as part of my pension package which will clear the balance, but I plan to be mortgage free long before then.

I think it all comes down to how financially savvy the person is, and if they enjoy taking a few risks.