The property boom is well underway now.

Harry_Powell

It must be the way I'm wording everything, or people on here have an agenda to push and disregard everything I'm saying...

I'll try one last time. It's not the case that new buyers want to see HPI for its own sake, so that they can sit at parties or on forums and say "Our house had a 300% increase, I weep for the youngsters". It's the case that moderate HPI will increase the valuation of our homes so that we can obtain the decent mortgage rates that the rest of you take for granted.

Perhaps thsi is the issue. Pre credit crunch, you lot didn't even worry about LTV because most mortgages were either classed as above 95% or below. Now that we have 95%, 80%, 75%, 65% and 60% LTV bands on mortgage rates post credit crunch it's of paramount importance to increase our LTVs to get cheaper mortgages. You guys who have seen HPI over the last decade don't even consider it - as can be evidenced by your complete lack of understanding. You lot had HPI to increase your wealth and realised that it's all smoke and mirrors. We need HPI to increase our LTV's because WE are having to pay for the mistakes made in the past by overlending to YOU.

I can't make is any plainer. If you still don't understand then I give up.

To paraphrase a famous quote... "It's all about the LTV, dummy".

Emy1501

Harry_Powell wrote: »

It must be the way I'm wording everything, or people on here have an agenda to push and disregard everything I'm saying...

I'll try one last time. It's not the case that new buyers want to see HPI for its own sake, so that they can sit at parties or on forums and say "Our house had a 300% increase, I weep for the youngsters". It's the case that moderate HPI will increase the valuation of our homes so that we can obtain the decent mortgage rates that the rest of you take for granted.

Perhaps thsi is the issue. Pre credit crunch, you lot didn't even worry about LTV because most mortgages were either classed as above 95% or below. Now that we have 95%, 80%, 75%, 65% and 60% LTV bands on mortgage rates post credit crunch it's of paramount importance to increase our LTVs to get cheaper mortgages. You guys who have seen HPI over the last decade don't even consider it - as can be evidenced by your complete lack of understanding. You lot had HPI to increase your wealth and realised that it's all smoke and mirrors. We need HPI to increase our LTV's because WE are having to pay for the mistakes made in the past by overlending to YOU.

I can't make is any plainer. If you still don't understand then I give up.

To paraphrase a famous quote... "It's all about the LTV, dummy".

In 1996 I paid over 7% for a 95% mortgage. As the the market sorts it self out 95% mortgages will become the norm again and the costs to borrow will become cheaper again.

The reason mortgages are so expensive at the moment is because of the uncertainty. This was no different in the mid 90's.

nembot

Still no spring bounce Conrad and lots of new properties on the market this month alone - not quite sure how this fits in with your plan of HPI domination.

Reality... it's a tough thing to deal with

mbga9pgf

Conrad wrote: »

No true at all. Many many get parental help, a loan from work, a 0% card or even save up !

Shock horror - people borrow deposits:eek: oh yes, just as thier freinds did in the past, 99% of whom were not repossessed.

I recall my own first mortgage before I was a broker. My boss had to ermm, do a conducive income reference and my GF had to pretend she worked for her brother. Tis just life in all it's glory. Anita Rovberts got a 'car loan' to start the Bodyshop.

In which case, I wouldnt trust you as far as I could throw you. I wonder what the FSA would think to a mortgage broker suggesting such practices to FTBs...

mbga9pgf

Emy1501 wrote: »

In 1996 I paid over 7% for a 95% mortgage. As the the market sorts it self out 95% mortgages will become the norm again and the costs to borrow will become cheaper again.

The reason mortgages are so expensive at the moment is because of the uncertainty. This was no different in the mid 90's.

:rotfl:

So, the termination of the Special liquidity scheme between now and 2014 has nothing to do with it then?

Not to mention all the bad debt writedowns RBS are taking as a result of dodgy property gambles in the US and on UK commercial loans?

When_is_the_reset?

Harry_Powell wrote: »

It must be the way I'm wording everything, or people on here have an agenda to push and disregard everything I'm saying...

I'll try one last time. It's not the case that new buyers want to see HPI for its own sake, so that they can sit at parties or on forums and say "Our house had a 300% increase, I weep for the youngsters". It's the case that moderate HPI will increase the valuation of our homes so that we can obtain the decent mortgage rates that the rest of you take for granted.

Perhaps thsi is the issue. Pre credit crunch, you lot didn't even worry about LTV because most mortgages were either classed as above 95% or below. Now that we have 95%, 80%, 75%, 65% and 60% LTV bands on mortgage rates post credit crunch it's of paramount importance to increase our LTVs to get cheaper mortgages. You guys who have seen HPI over the last decade don't even consider it - as can be evidenced by your complete lack of understanding. You lot had HPI to increase your wealth and realised that it's all smoke and mirrors. We need HPI to increase our LTV's because WE are having to pay for the mistakes made in the past by overlending to YOU.

I can't make is any plainer. If you still don't understand then I give up.

To paraphrase a famous quote... "It's all about the LTV, dummy".

Decreasing your LTV means that someone else in the future has to borrow even more, get more into debt and work even harder.

Why do you ask them to do that? Just for your convenience?

Banging on about people who have gone through the bubble and now have low LTVs is nonsense. They will probably get hit when prices slide.

Wanting prices to rise to suit you alone is selfish.

Lower house prices will suit the remainder of all who follow.

Bad luck on you for existing at the wrong time. (or deciding to stretch yourself with high LTVs).

N1AK

Conrad wrote: »

Wheres the fooling? Most benefit greatly from thier primary asset in the long run and then pass it on to a grateful family.

I doubt you're doing much fooling with observations as obviously false as this.

An increase in value of an asset is beneficial, however when it is combined with an equal increase in the size of a liability it is not beneficial.

In the case of a family with two children the increase in the value of a parents house is likely to be more than outweighed by the increase in the cost of buying their own homes (unless you work on the premise they could only afford smaller homes because of the prices). Additionally, the price they pay for their own homes will be increased by interest on the even larger mortgage and the amount will likely be decreased due to inheritance tax.

Ergo, if your parents house cost £5 and you could buy a house for £5 you would be better off than if your parents house was worth £250,000 but you had to get into debt buying a £250,000 house for yourself.

ukcarper

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Did you even read my post????!!!

I said that no doubt once people have a large amount of equity in their property, they can be like you and Pobby and sit back, thumbs stuck firmly in their waistcoat pockets, peering over their bloated, fat stomachs and spout about the inequity of HPI.

Meanwhile those of us who don't and who are struggling with crap LTV values are praying for HPI just to ease the burden a little. I can't wait until I'm in your position, I'll be thumbing those waistcoat pockets like no tomorrow!

You seem a very bitter young man can you explain what we are supposed to do HPI has taken place and most of us have not had influence on it at all. Once you have be paying your mortgage for twenty five years hopefully you will have some equity

Conrad

[QUOTE=nembot;31094933

Reality... it's a tough thing to deal with [/QUOTE]


Yep, the reality that from mid 07 until this year things were depressed, but now I have noticed a marked increase in activity.

Conrad

N1AK wrote: »

I doubt you're doing much fooling with observations as obviously false as this.

An increase in value of an asset is beneficial, however when it is combined with an equal increase in the size of a liability it is not beneficial.

Thats a good point.