It's harder for FTB's

nearlynew

chucky wrote: »

i guess that you must have sold your other houses - did you sell them at 3 times average salary?

No, about 5 times average salary.

lemonjelly

Generali wrote: »

The process of giving a loan AIUI is mostly automated so it will be quick. Most of the 15 minutes will be taking details of the borrower to see if they are a suitable customer.

It would be possible to pass a law to extend the process but it wouldn't really serve to do anything other than delay things. It wouldn't change the scrutiny the loan was under.

FWIW, I used to sell credit (and washing machines) at Rumbelows from 1987. Credit took about 20 minutes to arrange and could easily be for a couple of thousand pounds (perhaps equivalent to £5,000 now). Given faster IT and my quicker typing speed I reckon I could process a credit application in 15 minutes today.

I think my point is actually about this automation process. Staff should probe a lot more into applicants circumstances.

I say this because for years, when helping clients negotiate with creditors I have found that virtually everyone (of the client base, not the population) is not actually aware of their incomings & outgoins, & stuff always gets missed out. Problem is, these are commitments, & therefore the money will be spent. The other side is where the client is worried about your prejudices, so though they may smoke 40 a day, will only admit to 10. That way, you won't judge them. However, they'll still buy 40 fags a day, not the 10 they told you about. Trouble is, that means it's only a matter of time to rob peter to pay paul.

I used to spend an hour going through clients weekly incomings/outgoings. It was amazing how they'd change over the course of that hour. Sometimes I'd recommend that the diary all expenditure for a week (some shocking results would come in there!)

With a sales person spending such a short period of time (especially if that includes getting details, name, address etc) they don't have the time to properly ascertain people's incomings/outgoings, or sometimes get a hunch that they haven't got the full picture etc.

I'm not arguing about the process per se, in a way, I'm arguing there should be more ground work done. That automated 15 mins bit should be done at the very end, after all this ground work.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

two houses???

so you're renting one and making money on it... you're also reducing supply so making prices go up...

i guess that you must have sold your other houses - did you sell them at 3 times average salary?

You don't half go on.

How many times have you actually bought this up chucky? 10? 20? 30?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You don't half go on.

How many times have you actually bought this up chucky? 10? 20? 30?

bla bla bla Graham Devon getting involved in something that doesn't concern him.
How many times a day do you do this? 25? 50? 100?

get yourself a life or a girlfriend even - they'll fill in those gaps for you :T

dopester

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How many times have you actually bought this up chucky? 10? 20? 30?

It's interesting. First time Chucky mentioned it, I thought he was guessing.

Now it is confirmed, I see NN here just sniffing around, waiting for the crash to play out, so he can buy more BTLs. It changes my interpretation of his bearish posts, when they've most likely been part of the problem and enriched themselves in Labours bubble.

chucky

dopester wrote: »

It's interesting. First time Chucky mentioned it, I thought he was guessing.

Now it is confirmed, I see NN here just sniffing around, waiting for the crash to play out, so he can buy more BTLs. It changes my interpretation of his bearish posts, when they've been part of the problem and enriched themselves in the first place.

i have mentioned it a few times Dopester - i don't mind people being bearish but i don't like people living out their fantasy life on the internet pretending something there not.

as you know you and i have a totally opposed view on a lot of things but we know where we stand and stick to what we think.

some people are like drug addicts that continually deny that they have a problem and blame everyone else except they themselves are to blame.

nearlynew

dopester wrote: »

It's interesting. First time Chucky mentioned it, I thought he was guessing.

Now it is confirmed, I see NN here just sniffing around, waiting for the crash to play out, so he can buy more BTLs. It changes my interpretation of his bearish posts, when they've most likely been part of the problem and enriched themselves in Labours bubble.

I have never hidden the fact that I own 2 houses. But neither was a buy to let.

I became an "accidental landlord" many years ago through a job relocation.
The last time I bought a house (my current home) was in 1997

My reasons for wanting a fall in prices are well documented on here, so I don't feel the need to go through them all again.

The fact that I want prices to fall confuses the HPI cheerleaders.

And now seems to have confused one of the bears.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

bla bla bla Graham Devon getting involved in something that doesn't concern him.
How many times a day do you do this? 25? 50? 100?

get yourself a life or a girlfriend even - they'll fill in those gaps for you :T

What gaps chucky?

dopester

So NN.. when Chucky asked about your other houses, whether you sold them at x3 salary, and you replied x5 average salary...

Were those BTLs you've sold off in the last 3 years, or previous homes you've lived in earlier in life?

Chucky is open and honest about his position as a landlord, and makes lots of interesting points which are worth thinking about.

I'm not really bothered, and you probably the same... but to have an cashed-in BTLer now playing all the social conscience cards is a bit different for me.

Sort of thing which would have Billy The Kid here lose his temper over.

dopester

lemonjelly wrote: »

My hope would be that this would enforce a more responsible line on unsecured lending, and therefore reduce the levels of unsecured lending, meaning it would be less likely that people could borrow so much that it snowballs, & the action taken by creditors to enforce the unsecured debt results in the potential of securing the debt on an asset.

Again, we've all seen the adverts where a bank will give you a decision on a 25k loan in 15 mins. I mean really, is that professional or appropriate? Given that we're talking about such a high amount of money, I don't think it is. Devaluing the decision devalues the money, the person borrowing it, & the risks they are running.

a) I can't understand how any bank or building society would want to lend to subprime, high risk borrowers anyway - even if they have inflated value security of a house with equity. What sort of shareholders or members want their institution throwing money away?

b) Absolutely agree. Massive culture change, which began under Thatcher (but still with banking principles... not lending silly money to just anyone.. in the same number as today.) Culture change for lots of debt isn't much to fear. On that advert she's more interested in Josh's scooter than the little £25K she casually asks for.