Homeowners are in for a drop in prices in next year’s first half

Really2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I see a bit of a flaw in your maths.

It was back of a stamp maths, I had no way of knowing without doing a stupid amount of research. But the data was sufficient to prove my point that more than 100,000 0-25 YO would have lost a parent (or grand parent the original point was just inheritance)

Really2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The conversation seems to have become muddled..........

90% mortgages have always been available.

Have they? by all mainstream banks? and at what cost.

When I purchased in 2001 I had a 95% mortgage.

You are kidding yourself if you think their are lots of FTB loans available at the moment for 90% LTV or greater.

IveSeenTheLight

Really2 wrote: »

It was back of a stamp maths, I had no way of knowing without doing a stupid amount of research. But the data was sufficient to prove my point that more than 100,000 0-25 YO would have lost a parent (or grand parent the original point was just inheritance)

I'm not arguing about the inheritance issue boosting FTBers deposits.

I think also that with the credit crunch it may have made receivers of inheritance more likely to consider the inheritance befor spending it.

I don't this yourdata was sufficient to proove anything to be honest.
At best it just gives a personal guestimate, but it's not worth getting into a debate about.

Really2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm not arguing about the inheritance issue boosting FTBers deposits.

I think also that with the credit crunch it may have made receivers of inheritance more likely to consider the inheritance befor spending it.

I don't this yourdata was sufficient to proove anything to be honest.
At best it just gives a personal guestimate, but it's not worth getting into a debate about.

I think you will find al I am saying is that the amount of people receiving inheritance will have stayed around the same and in it'self is not skewing the figures.
The figures are skewed because high LTV mortgages (100-90%) do not make up the majority of all loans.

Don't understand the last bit the if 35,000+ 24-54 year olds die each year it stands to reason that over 100,000 0-25 year old's would have lost a parent? (even more so if you consider the average family is 2.4 children)

That was my point, to back up that not to get an exact figure.

If it was not worth getting in a debate about why contest it?

Thrugelmir

Really2 wrote: »

Have they? by all mainstream banks? and at what cost.

When I purchased in 2001 I had a 95% mortgage.

You are kidding yourself if you think their are lots of FTB loans available at the moment for 90% LTV or greater.

I went onto to the FSA money website and found 8 lenders (12 products) for a 90% LTV on a £150k purchase price. This was for a FTB on a repayment basis over 25 years.

If you can afford it and wish to purchase a property the mortgages are there.

I'll concede there were no lenders offering over 90% LTV. Thats where the market has changed.

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I went onto to the FSA money website and found 8 lenders (12 products) for a 90% LTV on a £150k purchase price. This was for a FTB on a repayment basis over 25 years.

If you can afford it and wish to purchase a property the mortgages are there.

I'll concede there were no lenders offering over 90% LTV. Thats where the market has changed.

90% mortgages never really disappeared despite what many claim.

however, the lending criteria to get a 90% mortgage has become stricter which gives the impression that they weren't available.

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

90% mortgages never really disappeared despite what many claim.

however, the lending criteria to get a 90% mortgage has become stricter which gives the impression that they weren't available.

All thats disappeared is the sub prime lending market. The traditional lenders still lend as they always have done on the same tight criteria.

Dan:_4

and LloydsTSB offer a 95% mortgage for FTBers. (oh, but you need to get mum and dad to put up 20% of their savings as extra security)

http://www.lloydstsb.com/mortgages/lend_a_hand.asp

Really2

chucky wrote: »

90% mortgages never really disappeared despite what many claim.

however, the lending criteria to get a 90% mortgage has become stricter which gives the impression that they weren't available.

I agree. To add to that the number of 90% mortages on offer has changed. they were dressed up hundreds of different ways in the past.

As Thruglemir says there are now just 12 products, and like chucky says it is now also stricter.
so if a borrower is stugling to get one from one lender they don't have many places to turn.
Which is not a bad thing, but it gives some idea how constricted the funds are for lending to that group.

IveSeenTheLight

Really2 wrote: »

I think you will find al I am saying is that the amount of people receiving inheritance will have stayed around the same and in it'self is not skewing the figures.
The figures are skewed because high LTV mortgages (100-90%) do not make up the majority of all loans.

Don't understand the last bit the if 35,000+ 24-54 year olds die each year it stands to reason that over 100,000 0-25 year old's would have lost a parent? (even more so if you consider the average family is 2.4 children)

That was my point, to back up that not to get an exact figure.

If it was not worth getting in a debate about why contest it?

Again, I wasn't arguing against the inheritance part, just pointing out there are a number of unknowns in your calculation making it no better than a guess.

I said it was not worth getting into a debate to try and put an end to the point I made.