Renters: Angry and Insecure

leveller2911

kabayiri wrote: »

Last I checked it was a forum about the economy too.

The arguments about house prices all feel tired and played out. You just use it as an excuse to bait people.

I don't see anyone ramp gold the way you try and ramp house prices.

Hamish is a true Master Baiter, .........Most days I check many of the forums, Loans,Bankruptcy,DIY, Uk holidays , Holidays abroad,motoring,Benefits etc and I can't find anyone quite like Hamish.....

neverdespairgirl

Sibley wrote: »

He's renting a house with two kids and has got his missus up the duff again. He was in no position to bring a child into the world.

Someone who rents a house is a total loser? Weird value system you have!

Gorgeous_George

Homeowners (generally) need to buy a large enough house BEFORE the arrival of new family members (if only to meet mortgage borrowing multiples). Tenants claiming LHA need to have another child before their eligibility for a larger home can be assessed.

Unemployed? More kids = bigger house and more money
Employed? More kids = less money

There must be a better way.

GG

GG

DervProf

leveller2911 wrote: »

Hamish is a true Master Baiter, .........Most days I check many of the forums, Loans,Bankruptcy,DIY, Uk holidays , Holidays abroad,motoring,Benefits etc and I can't find anyone quite like Hamish.....

....... which is nice.

phil_b_2

leveller2911 wrote: »

The truth is Hamish your the one who is "Insecure" because its pretty much all you ever post about.........Very sad, your either paranoid or just a Troll on poppers...............;)

Sorry to go all grammar police, I know it's petty, but it's "you're". Just a bit of constructive criticism.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Still, if you'd prefer there to be 30 threads about gold ramping

I've not actually seen any gold ramping for a while, which is surprising since the price of gold in GBP dropped just over 10% in the last few months. I thought they would be hammering away.

phil_b_2

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Homeowners (generally) need to buy a large enough house BEFORE the arrival of new family members (if only to meet mortgage borrowing multiples). Tenants claiming LHA need to have another child before their eligibility for a larger home can be assessed.

Unemployed? More kids = bigger house and more money
Employed? More kids = less money

There must be a better way.

GG

GG

Absolutely, it's criminal.

I personally think that people should get support for their first child if in trouble, maybe their second too, but after that they are on their own. It would perhaps penalise the extra kids but what can ya do?

dlk

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

In general, house prices have risen to absorb two full time salaries. I 'blame' equal opps for women (takes cover). Let me explain...

There was a time when men worked and women stayed at home (I know, a terrible generalisation). Before marriage couples worked hard and saved a deposit (33% was the norm). After marriage and the inevitable kids, the woman's wage was lost as she stayed home to look after the children but the mortgage was affordable with just the man's wage. Equal opps for women seemed a great idea (and it was) and long overdue but house prices rose to soak up this additional household income so today, working people can ill afford to have children.

GG

Bloody hell!! I knew if I waded through the pages and pages of people squabbling over who's opinion is right I would finally find a posting worth reading. I had genuinely not thought of it in that way before and I can definately see the truth in this comment.

angrypirate

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

In Post #1 the Rachel Fraser case compares rent of £475 to buying a £100K house. A 100% mortgage would need to be at a rate of 3% to keep the repayments down to £475.

However, over time the rent will almost certainly rise. The mortgage might rise too but only with interest rate movements and not inflation. So, if a 100% mortgage was available, Rachel could find herself in a better position in a few years' time.

The introduction of 100% mortgages has only been relatively recently. Prior to the housing boom of the naughties it was the norm for banks to ask for 10% (if not more) deposit depending on your credit rating. The purpose of this was that banks would only lend to people who had proven to be good customers with good credit rating who were responsible with their money. A policy which, had they kept to, would have seen a much smaller house price boom and also would have made this whole economic bust a lot smaller.

However, the banks could see there was a house price boom happening and due to this boom, equity was quickly built up even for people with 100% mortgages - people were getting 5 - 10% equity in their house in no time at all simply by the inflation happening at the time so the banks were happy giving out these mortgages.

Banks arent offering these 100% mortgages because they arent expecting the sort of house price inflation we were seeing in the early naughties. Judging by the desposits they are asking for, I think its not unreasonable to say banks are expecting house prices to fall which in itself is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Right now interest rates are so low so the income banks are receiving on mortgages are much smaller. Why should they invest in high risk people wanting 100% mortgages? The only reason why they might is, if they slap them with a 7 - 8% interest rate, but then they get slammed for being unfair.

Banks make their money by investing. The risk they are willing to take on their investment will be dependent on the returns they can potentially make and the status of their balance sheets. Right now their balance sheets arent too healthy and returns are down due to low interest rates. Why take a high risk investment strategy now?

chucky

angrypirate wrote: »

Banks arent offering these 100% mortgages because they arent expecting the sort of house price inflation we were seeing in the early naughties. Judging by the desposits they are asking for, I think its not unreasonable to say banks are expecting house prices to fall which in itself is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

do you think that may be because they don't have enough fund to lend and are only lending to more secure borrowers instead at 75% LTV instead of more riky 90% LTVs.

here's another one - why aren't banks lending to buisiness?

it can't be because they're expecting house prices to fall... it's because there isn't enough money in the system to lend to everyone who comes in to get a loan, be it mortgages or business loans.

only the best borrowers are being able to borrow funds.

angrypirate

chucky wrote: »

do you think that may be because they don't have enough fund to lend and are only lending to more secure borrowers instead at 75% LTV instead of more riky 90% LTVs.

here's another one - why aren't banks lending to buisiness?

it can't be because they're expecting house prices to fall... it's because there isn't enough money in the system to lend to everyone who comes in to get a loan, be it mortgages or business loans.

only the best borrowers are being able to borrow funds.

Question is, how do you define best. The best mortgage borrowers (ie the best places for a bank to invest) in a time when house prices are going up are surely the 100% mortgage holders, whom you can slap on an extra % or 2 on their interest payments coz of the LTV ratio at the time the mortgage is taken out. House prices are going up so no risk of NE in case of a repo. But thats not who they are lending to now because they dont see house prices going up. So they best people to lend to are those with big deposits reducing the risk of a NE repo situation.

You could argue that lending to businesses is even riskier as their is no physical asset to sell if the business goes bust.

As to how much money the banks have - i personally believe its a bit of a red herring. The banks see a bust and a HPC, so are protecting themselves against it.