Mortgage lending up again, rises by 2%

Emy1501

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Hardly evidence or fact though is it

The analysis was done by the CML so whislt not fact I suspect its reasonably accurate

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Merely that earlier it was suggested that an area must be low wage if "cheap" property is available to purchase.

My personal perception is that there must be "hot" spots that are supporting average house prices. Due to there being a concentration of above average wage earners. Such as silicon Thames Valley where you have all the worlds largest computer companies and mobile phone operators concentrated in a smallish area.

£35,452 cannot be considered a high income for mortgage purposes, especially if this could be attained by a joint application.

The ONS had the Average Full Time Male earner at around these levels in 2008

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

£35,452 cannot be considered a high income for mortgage purposes, especially if this could be attained by a joint application.

The ONS had the Average Full Time Male earner at around these levels in 2008

I've seen many Company payrolls over the years. Averages are very misleading. Owner directors of privately owned companies (which employ around 50% of the UK workforce) can pay themselves whatever the business allows. So the remaining employees earn far less than the average.

IveSeenTheLight

Emy1501 wrote: »

The analysis was done by the CML so whislt not fact I suspect its reasonably accurate

I've re-read the report and it's interesting they said young FTBers i.e. under 30.
They also attributed it to the tightening in lending criteria

Therefore the fact that it is not all FTBers and their assumption based on increased deposits out down with their terminology of the thought its what was happening, in my opinion puts the figures in doubt.

I am not disputing that children may be getting help with deposits, what parent does not help their child out if they could.
What does it matter in the grand scheme of things, the deposit is obtained and the tighter credit criteria is met.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I've seen many Company payrolls over the years. Averages are very misleading. Owner directors of privately owned companies (which employ around 50% of the UK workforce) can pay themselves whatever the business allows. So the remaining employees earn far less than the average.

Hmmmmmmmm
That theory would relate to them being paid far less and them taking dividends, meaning the true average is higher.

At the end of the day, if the median average earner cannot afford property because they are being snapped up by mean average employees.

I still don;t believe that £35,000 is a high mortgage application especially when that figure could be obtained as part of a joint income.

Emy1501

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I've re-read the report and it's interesting they said young FTBers i.e. under 30.
They also attributed it to the tightening in lending criteria

Therefore the fact that it is not all FTBers and their assumption based on increased deposits out down with their terminology of the thought its what was happening, in my opinion puts the figures in doubt.

I am not disputing that children may be getting help with deposits, what parent does not help their child out if they could.
What does it matter in the grand scheme of things, the deposit is obtained and the tighter credit criteria is met.

The answers I would be interested are

1) Are these parents giving their children the money as gift? Are they lending the money to their children or are they investing the money in the property.
2) How many parents can afford to do this and for how long? Hamish recently suggested it could on for another 20 years. Is there any evidence regarding this?

IveSeenTheLight

Emy1501 wrote: »

The answers I would be interested are

1) Are these parents giving their children the money as gift? Are they lending the money to their children or are they investing the money in the property.
2) How many parents can afford to do this and for how long? Hamish recently suggested it could on for another 20 years. Is there any evidence regarding this?

1) Doubt you will get a factual answer to that one.

2) Theoretically there are a lot of parents with wealth. Why, possibly for one because they bought property very cheaply, in the early 70's before the debt was inflated away. My parents in law bought their first property for less than I take home in a month. This means that a lot of parents have been mortgage free for a long time with a lot of disposable income.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Hmmmmmmmm
That theory would relate to them being paid far less and them taking dividends, meaning the true average is higher.

Unfortunately larger profits attract far higher rates of Corporation tax so not tax efficent.

A mix of salary plus dividends needs to computated based upon taxable profit.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Unfortunately larger profits attract far higher rates of Corporation tax so not tax efficent.

A mix of salary plus dividends needs to computated based upon taxable profit.

Still resulting in the true average wage being higher