Finding 100% Mortgages

Conrad

My first mortgage was almost 100%. Now I find myself with penty of equity. What right have I to deny others dreams.

LESS THAN 1% OF PROPERTIES ARE REPOSSESSED. 99% are NOT repossessed.

Rates rising is a potential worry for many but in the final analysis most people do cope and don't end in the gutter.

VIG - youre always lecturing people so it MUST follow that you yourself are perfect - this in turn means you excercise veryday and never eat unhealthy food - yes?

No?!! There you go - we all take calculated risks - using blanket risk statements as a one size fits all is a nonsense.
There is risk in driving - probably a similar risk to being repossessed in statistical terms - but you drive - yes?

VIGILANT22

Conrad wrote: »

On the other hand the vast majority that took 100% mortgages in the last decade are not in neg eq and do not regret.

I do not agree...this group more than any other group in the history of lending are the one's who took a more risk based view to mortgages/lending/debt etc...equity increased rapidly, they would debt consolidate, release equity to invest in the BTL market etc.......People prior to this was much more prudent and people now are....it the people who purchased in the last decade who are indeed in the most problems (they thot the party would never end)....

GSXRCarlos

lazer wrote: »

I don't need to read up on finance to understand negative equity, and honestly I would rather be in the position of negative equity than throwing money away on rent.

I want to buy as house as a home, not an investment. I want somewhere I can decorate, renovate and do what i want with without the constant fear being evicted etc.
The security of my own home means a lot to me.
A fixed rate mortgage for 5 years would me i know i could afford the repayments regardless of house prices rising or falling.
Negative equity only really becomes an issue when looking to move or release the equity.

and what happens if you lose your job, you lose your house, and still owe a chunk of money :T

Conrad

GSXRCarlos wrote: »

and what happens if you lose your job, you lose your house, and still owe a chunk of money :T

and what happens if you get hit by a lorry today?

Do you excercise every day and eat only healthy food? You don't! Well the risks to your health would be far more serious than a 1% risk of repossession.

Open eyes............

AddictedMoneysaver

A lot of people on here shoot down 95 or 100% mortgages but surely the economy needs first time buyers to get the market moving again and surely while house prices are as high as they are, you need banks to be offering these mortgages to people so they can get on the ladder?

And I know I'll be shot down now by people saying 'that's what caused the problems in the first place' but in actual reality surely it was the 125% mortgages that started the problems - there were 95% mortgages around for a long time before all the probems started and I'm not an economist but in my eyes the system seemed to be running pretty well back then....?

GSXRCarlos

Conrad wrote: »

and what happens if you get hit by a lorry today?

Do you excercise every day and eat only healthy food? You don't! Well the risks to your health would be far more serious than a 1% risk of repossession.

Open eyes............

Sorry for my lazy post, but ...

you've compounded my arguement for not being able to maintain the minimum payments.

I'd rather have a house with equity in it, that i could sell in a hurry to pay off the mortgage, than be stuck with a big bill when i have nothing of value left to sell

As for your health comments, i do run most days, and eat reasonabily healthily too, you comment was almost as flippant as mine

lazer

GSXRCarlos wrote: »

and what happens if you lose your job, you lose your house, and still owe a chunk of money :T

As i said above

"What i would love to do is get a 100% mortgage and keep the savings to pay for furniture etc, and to keep as a back up in case I become out of work at some point"
I would have the savings to pay the mortgage for a time (I would like at lease a years payments at least saved), and i would hope to have found a new job within that year.
However if the worst came to the worst, and i did lose the house and owe a chunk of money - thats life, these things happen and have to be dealt with.

To me the risk is worth it.

VIGILANT22

AddictedMoneysaver wrote: »

A lot of people on here shoot down 95 or 100% mortgages but surely the economy needs first time buyers to get the market moving again and surely while house prices are as high as they are, you need banks to be offering these mortgages to people so they can get on the ladder?

And I know I'll be shot down now by people saying 'that's what caused the problems in the first place' but in actual reality surely it was the 125% mortgages that started the problems - there were 95% mortgages around for a long time before all the probems started and I'm not an economist but in my eyes the system seemed to be running pretty well back then....?

One of the biggest problem was the criteria changed and made borrowing much easier and more accesible to some people who may have not been ready to take on the responsibility of a mortgage. For example.. at one point NR when assessing affordability for mortgages, did not consider what clients had outstanding on credit cards or the limit on the CC....the credit reporting system they used did not show up Scottish Trust Deed's...these are just a couple of examples from 1 lender....

blueberrypie

lazer wrote: »

I don't need to read up on finance to understand negative equity, and honestly I would rather be in the position of negative equity than throwing money away on rent.

Renting isn't "throwing money away" - that money is putting a roof over your head. Even if you're paying more in rent than you would on a mortgage, remember that in the first few years of a mortgage, most of it goes on interest - so you're just handing over most of your payment to the lender, rather than a landlord. Not only that, but owning a home means you're responsible for the maintenance and repair of it. Place needs rewiring? Heating stop working? Windows need replacing? It's you who pays.

*Having* a home - whether it's owned or rented - costs money that you'll never see again.

Negative equity only really becomes an issue when looking to move or release the equity.

People don't always move just because they fancy a new place to live, and none of us knows what the future holds. Negative equity stops people from responding to changing life circumstances in the way they'd want to. Sometimes people want to move because they can no longer afford their mortgage payments because their relationships have broken up, or because they've lost their job. People sometimes move home because their family needs have changed: impaired mobility, perhaps, or a special-needs child, or they need to be closer to an elderly or ill relative.

Negative equity traps people in situations like these. It's not a risk I'd choose to take. I'd rather own my home than rent it - but I'd rather rent than be stuck in a house I couldn't afford, or be unable to move if I desperately wanted to.

VIGILANT22

[QUOTE=lazer;

However if the worst came to the worst, and i did lose the house and owe a chunk of money - thats life, these things happen and have to be dealt with. To me the risk is worth it.[/QUOTE]

I have just posted about people not ready to take on the responsibility of a mortgage....above is a prime example.....