Self-cert " made up nearly half of all the mortgages offered at the peak of the boom"

chucknorris

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

At the market's peak, in 2007, 45pc of applications were "non-income verified" including around 10pc of borrowers who were "self-certified" – a product dubbed "liars loans" that will be banned under the new rules.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/6379055/Homeowners-will-struggle-to-remortgage-under-FSA-rules.html

So it was 10%, not 45%....:rotfl:

And of that 10%, not all will have lied. Some, if not most will simply have chosen to self cert rather than run around collecting accounts tax returns, etc.....

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Most non income verified loans were not liar loans at all. Just lazy loans....

And yes, maybe that 10% will struggle to remortgage or get another mortgage if they bought again. But that also means they'll struggle to move, and it will take a huge chunk of houses off the market for years.....

Actually Hamish I believe RBS's figure of 23% (even though it seems high) the 10% figure being banded around is I think an approx average. I do not know for sure but I believe the 10% to be a long term average and the 23% specific to July 2007 (which fits the snapshot in time of the top of the market when people were struggling to get mortgages at that higher level).

Generali

Wookster wrote: »

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article6881680.ece

From Wookster's article:

Applicants for a home loan may have to divulge how much they drink...under proposals to improve the regulation of the mortgage market.

Given the amount most English people drink (myself included), that alone will mean the end of the housing market for mortgaged properties at least!

PS The place to get those mortage stats from would have been the CML website but now they charge £6,000+ a year to access them.

abaxas

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

At the market's peak, in 2007, 45pc of applications were "non-income verified" including around 10pc of borrowers who were "self-certified" – a product dubbed "liars loans" that will be banned under the new rules.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/6379055/Homeowners-will-struggle-to-remortgage-under-FSA-rules.html

So it was 10%, not 45%....:rotfl:

And of that 10%, not all will have lied. Some, if not most will simply have chosen to self cert rather than run around collecting accounts tax returns, etc.....

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Most non income verified loans were not liar loans at all. Just lazy loans....

And yes, maybe that 10% will struggle to remortgage or get another mortgage if they bought again. But that also means they'll struggle to move, and it will take a huge chunk of houses off the market for years.....

LOL 2!

Changing the name of something doesnt make it different.

What is scary is that almost 1/2 of loans in 2007 had next to no checks to see if the applicant could actually pay the money back.

Why bother with 10% hpi, there is no risk. If anything (as per lost of business models at the time) not paying it back is more profitable, as this loads on the 'fees'.

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

From Wookster's article:

Given the amount most English people drink (myself included), that alone will mean the end of the housing market for mortgaged properties at least!

PS The place to get those mortage stats from would have been the CML website but now they charge £6,000+ a year to access them.

Me too, I'm not very good at cutting down either, last month I went dry for a week to prove to my wife that I could cut back if I wanted (then resumed normal service).

chucknorris

abaxas wrote: »

LOL 2!

Changing the name of something doesnt make it different.

What is scary is that almost 1/2 of loans in 2007 had next to no checks to see if the applicant could actually pay the money back.

Why bother with 10% hpi, there is no risk. If anything (as per lost of business models at the time) not paying it back is more profitable, as this loads on the 'fees'.

Non income verified loans are simply loans that the mortgage lender decides not to verify (presumably to save on staff costs), not something the borrower has specifically applied for.

abaxas

chucknorris wrote: »

Non income verified loans are simply loans that the mortgage lender decides not to verify (presumably to save on staff costs), not something the borrower has specifically applied for.

Exactly! With no risk (at the time) why bother if someone could pay the money back.

chucknorris

abaxas wrote: »

Exactly! With no risk (at the time) why bother if someone could pay the money back.

Do I really need to explain this? Because they might NOT be able to pay the money back that's why!

Wookster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

At the market's peak, in 2007, 45pc of applications were "non-income verified" including around 10pc of borrowers who were "self-certified" – a product dubbed "liars loans" that will be banned under the new rules.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/6379055/Homeowners-will-struggle-to-remortgage-under-FSA-rules.html

So it was 10%, not 45%....:rotfl:

And of that 10%, not all will have lied. Some, if not most will simply have chosen to self cert rather than run around collecting accounts tax returns, etc.....

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Most non income verified loans were not liar loans at all. Just lazy loans....

And yes, maybe that 10% will struggle to remortgage or get another mortgage if they bought again. But that also means they'll struggle to move, and it will take a huge chunk of houses off the market for years.....

This is getting a bit tiresome. It seems I need to go slower to get this into your think head.

The article states:

The FSA also confirmed in its mortgage market review that it wants to ban self-certification mortgages, as revealed in The Times last week. These have been dubbed “liars’ loans” because borrowers do not have to prove income.

Liars loans = self certified loans according to the article.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chucknorris wrote: »

Me too, I'm not very good at cutting down either, last month I went dry for a week to prove to my wife that I could cut back if I wanted (then resumed normal service).

Yeah, I was like that too.... Then got a promotion and found myself "on-call" most of the time.

I've now cut back to drinking only 2 nights a week, and a lot less when I do, and it's been like that for 8 months now. Not remotely difficult, which surprised me, after many years of 5 or 6 nights a week. Cut back slowly over a few weeks, and probably drink 80% less now than I used to. Certainly feel a lot better in the mornings. And I am genuinely surprised by how much money it saves.

And to bring this nicely back on-topic, I therefore suspect most people could cut down long enough to get 3 months bank statements together for a mortgage application.

chucknorris

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yeah, I was like that too.... Then got a promotion and found myself "on-call" most of the time.

I've now cut back to drinking only 2 nights a week, and a lot less when I do, and it's been like that for 8 months now. Not remotely difficult, which surprised me, after many years of 5 or 6 nights a week. Cut back slowly over a few weeks, and probably drink 80% less now than I used to. Certainly feel a lot better in the mornings. And I am genuinely surprised by how much money it saves.

And to bring this nicely back on-topic, I therefore suspect most people could cut down long enough to get 3 months bank statements together for a mortgage application.

Have you given up with Wookster? He just doesn't seem able to understand that the BBC was wrong and got confused between NIV and self certified. I was going to point it out yet again, but how many times do you have to say the same thing, he is right about one thing it is getting tiresome.