HSBC calls end of crash, increases 90% mortgage funding

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Whats your point?

You keep using really high income figures to make it.

Thats NOT a normal family income.

It may be a normal professional couple in decent jobs income. But not a normal family income. Families far outweight professional couples with no intention of kids.

that's exactly what Thruglmeir put in his post - why question mine when i'm using his example?

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Major lenders seem to reducing loan exposure in general by reducing multiples.

So although 90% sounds great.

A year ago on a £40k salary times 5 salary at 90% LTV = £180k

Today on a £40k salary times 3.5 salary at 90% LTV = £126k.

Even allowing for the fact that the higher multiple requires another £6k of deposit.

i even did one for you at a joint income of £60k which is realistic for a home buyer - did you not understand that one? :rolleyes:

chucky

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

dont think you'll find many FTB couples that are both on £40k

fair point - they wouldn't be buying an average house seeing that they#re FTB's so purchase price would be less too.

doire_2

StevieJ wrote: »

Perhaps it wan't as big as you thought

It was probably bigger. Especially as im from the North of Ireland where prices rocketed to astronomical levels.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

that's exactly what Thruglmeir put in his post - why question mine when i'm using his example?

Erm ok. Thrugel said 40k. You used 80 and 60k.

But yer, same and all that stuff.

I disagree that income of 60k per year is realistic for a home buyer. Do you have any proof of this?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Erm ok. Thrugel said 40k. You used 80 and 60k.

But yer, same and all that stuff.

I disagree that income of 60k per year is realistic for a home buyer. Do you have any proof of this?

shall we take the minimum wage and compare it average house prices then?

the_ash_and_the_oak

StevieJ wrote: »

Perhaps it wan't as big as you thought

Kinda feeling a triping in a decade is big imo

doire_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Erm ok. Thrugel said 40k. You used 80 and 60k.

But yer, same and all that stuff.

I disagree that income of 60k per year is realistic for a home buyer. Do you have any proof of this?

Particularly with unemployment rising

Really2

doire wrote: »

Particularly with unemployment rising

IF you are unemployed buying a house is never very realistic.

Boom or Bust.

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucky wrote: »

that sounds pretty good for an FTB... why didn't you do it on joint income :rolleyes:

how about

on a two £40k salary at just 3 times salary at 90% LTV = £240 plus a 10% deposit = property around £264k on 90% mortgage...

and when you talk about an FTB... will they be buying an average house?
you seem to be comparing and FTB with average house prices.
an FTB is not an average home buyer...

you're comparing oranges and apples... that isn't a very realistic or even balanced viewpoint :rolleyes:

I'm a bit confused on this one (tho Im ok w your point about comparing FTB w ave prices)

What they are able to buy or not aside - isn't Thrugelmir just saying that a single FTB on 40k had access to 180 and now has access to 126? that the amount available to a single buyer (in this scenario) is reduced?

the_ash_and_the_oak

Really2 wrote: »

IF you are unemployed buying a house is never very realistic.

Boom or Bust.

true but if unemployment rises does it not reduce the pool of available buyers?