100% Mortgages

katmcleod

verytricky69 wrote: »

Can you find a decentsih rate for 5%?!! Or even 10% for that matter!

We've just found a decentish rate for 15% and have had to get together 45k for that (it wasnt easy)

I think people should save for a deposit- Whats wrong with saving for something you want to buy?

10% deposits should be saved.

To the OP - just to clarify- are you asking if we think 100% mortgages will be available or if they Should be available?

I dont think they will be for a long time (but may wel be eventually) I dont think they should ever be available

Just asking if you think they will, asking if they should could start a fight on here

katmcleod

I first asked because we're trying to work out what we'll need to save to buy a home. We rent and have to ask permission to do anything, hang pictures, put in a flower bed, put up curtains, it's not our home.
But to buy a bottom of the market dingy flat would need a deposit higher than our yearly household income!
With myself and my husband plus two kids we can't afford to save a deposit that high, and we could never afford one for a nice house.
Living with parents isn't always a great option, you're not paying all the costs, your parents are stuck with it. If you can afford to save thousands for a deposit how about giving some to your parents for letting you live at home in your twenties or thirties.

100% I don't think were a good idea, but 95% with decent rates would be. Saving 5% is achievable, and if you had decent rates it would be affordable too. Why not make it cheaper to buy so you can save a bigger fund for emergencies like a new boiler or redundancy?

We've rented for 11 years now, never even been late with a payment, having checked out prices we would pay the same mortgage as we would rent (with insurance on top) so hardly a huge difference. Think where we'd be if we had bought 11yrs ago? If only!

If you could buy a family home straight off this wouldn't be a problem, you wouldn't need to worry about equity and moving up the ladder. You could buy somewhere to stay. I hate the thought that when we finally save a deposit and buy we'll have to renovate and sell a few times over a long long period of time before we can actually have a nice house.

I've no idea what would help FTB's without hurting current home owners but something needs done. No FTB's means no one can sell and move anywhere bigger. Stamp duty change was a drop in the oceon.

Person_one

Is it mainly assumed that people buy property in couples? Why is this? I thought single person households were the fastest growing type in the country?

I don't believe 100% mortgages should come back. I don't think they do any good for anyone. I can absolutely see how people struggling to save might be tempted but they could be in serious trouble down the line and the banks who were so eager to help them out before won't want to know!

It would be great in a way if house prices fell significantly but that would be selling out a massive number of people who have bought in the last 15 or 20 years and trap them in the homes they're in now.

Maybe a huge increase in wages for lower earners would be the best option! I think a healthcare assistant or bus driver on 12-15K deserves to own their home just as much as an investment banker or an accountant on 70-100K.

PasturesNew

Look on the positive side. If there are 0 100% mortgages, then mortgages can only be obtained by people who have saved a deposit.

The number of people who bother to save a deposit will be less than the number of people who would have bought if they had a 100% mortgage.

Ergo, house prices will not rise/not rise as fast .... giving you time to save your deposit.

If 100% mortgages returned, you'd be killed in the rush ... and house prices would zoom.

PasturesNew

Person_one wrote: »

Is it mainly assumed that people buy property in couples? Why is this? I thought single person households were the fastest growing type in the country?

The word single is over-used and means a whole different bunch of people. Single could be OAPs/widows/widowers, singles could be 18-21, single can be ye olde spinsters, single parents are known as singles.

Singles will either have:
- limited income (benefits, part-time work or a pension)
- one income.

Maybe the group of "single people who are employed and in a position to buy a house" is a very small subset of the total ... and generally with only one income it's been impossible for years for them to buy. So, mostly, it's couples who buy.

Person_one

PasturesNew wrote: »

The word single is over-used and means a whole different bunch of people. Single could be OAPs/widows/widowers, singles could be 18-21, single can be ye olde spinsters, single parents are known as singles.

Singles will either have:
- limited income (benefits, part-time work or a pension)
- one income.

Maybe the group of "single people who are employed and in a position to buy a house" is a very small subset of the total ... and generally with only one income it's been impossible for years for them to buy. So, mostly, it's couples who buy.

I bought with my ex last year when we both earned just over 20K, it was a breeze.

Now we've split and I'm looking at buying on my own. I have a substantial deposit for my area but because I'm looking at being on a very low income for a while (13-14k) I'll have to keep on saving or buy something a bit grotty!

Next, I'd like to experience buying property with an unlimited budget and a wonderful man please.

tara747

PasturesNew wrote: »

Look on the positive side. If there are 0 100% mortgages, then mortgages can only be obtained by people who have saved a deposit.

The number of people who bother to save a deposit will be less than the number of people who would have bought if they had a 100% mortgage.

Ergo, house prices will not rise/not rise as fast .... giving you time to save your deposit.

If 100% mortgages returned, you'd be killed in the rush ... and house prices would zoom.

EXACTLY.

Those FTBs who wish for 100% mortgages *should* know this, but many don't. Houses would be no more affordable to them than they are now. 'Oh please Mr Bank Manager, give me more debt!'

katmcleod - why didn't you buy a few years ago when 100% mortgages *were* available? Probably because houses were too expensive, right? Well, 100% mortgages were what made them too expensive. And have you been saving at all in the last 11 years? I know you say that a mortgage would be the same as rent, but what about all the extras, and you also need to pay for maintenance. Could you cope with the extra expenditure? To me, someone who is unable to save would be likely to struggle with a mortgage.