DM: Plight of 1.1m stuck in homes they can't sell

Orpheo

Exocet wrote: »

Gosh. Sounds like you are in a different position to the 'whiner'.

Your point being?

Exocet

Orpheo wrote: »

Your point being?

It is impressive that you have a 50% deposit, and will only require 2 times whatever to buy your eventual dwelling place. It may explain your lack of sympathy / empathy for someone who is not in such a fortunate position.

We all try to do the best for our kids. Ideally I suppose, no one would work at all, then they could be at home all the time and available for fun, etc. And others have to work every minute in a job to fund what they think is necessary for their kids. And there are all points in between.

So my point is that I thought you were unfair to use the term whining, when to me the post read as someone explaining some anecdotal about their situation. I find these anecdotals interesting - they are a view of other peoples lives, and how they approach and deal with situations.

neverdespairgirl

Sibley wrote: »

I'm glad people can see its a dead market now. Cutting the price wont sell your home only attract the wrong type of buyer. Better just sit it out. Wont take long to get back to normal.

What is the "wrong type of buyer"?

Orpheo

Exocet wrote: »

It is impressive that you have a 50% deposit, and will only require 2 times whatever to buy your eventual dwelling place. It may explain your lack of sympathy / empathy for someone who is not in such a fortunate position.

We all try to do the best for our kids. Ideally I suppose, no one would work at all, then they could be at home all the time and available for fun, etc. And others have to work every minute in a job to fund what they think is necessary for their kids. And there are all points in between.

So my point is that I thought you were unfair to use the term whining, when to me the post read as someone explaining some anecdotal about their situation. I find these anecdotals interesting - they are a view of other peoples lives, and how they approach and deal with situations.

I think your username should be FullOfPoliticallyCorrectBS.

What makes you think that I haven't avoided job opportunities because they were in areas where the homes are too expensive? In fact we moved out of Greater London to the East Midlands partly because we could earn equivalent pay and live a less expensive life.

My available house deposit wasn't gifted to me by good fairies, it was accrued by living within my means and saving which I believe to be creditable. Admittedly, a portion was accrued due to HPI, I do not consider that to be creditable at all.

"We all try to do the best for our kids." Sorry, your username should actually be CaptainObvious. Or is it that you are being emotive and hoping to tug the strings of my cold heart?

The facts of the matter are that we are in no small part the masters of our own destiny. Or are we victims?

Exocet

Orpheo wrote: »

I think your username should be FullOfPoliticallyCorrectBS.

That would be a pain to type in each time.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Orpheo wrote: »

There seems to be a general lack of understanding as to why, in the current environment, lenders are demanding larger deposits. It is not arbitrary nonsense, it means that there is equity in the property which may serve to protect the lender's stake should they be forced to repossess. It appears that the banks anticipate falling prices.

Nonsense.

It's because of the opportunity to profiteer from rationing a limited pool of available funding through price.

It's mortgage rationing, plain and simple, and it will gradually reverse as confidence grows, liquidity returns and competition increases in the mortgage lending market.

As we have already clearly seen with a steady improvement in LTV requirements and rates over the last year.

ILW

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

What is the "wrong type of buyer"?

It appears to be one that will not pay what the seller thinks their place is worth.

ILW

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Nonsense.

It's because of the opportunity to profiteer from rationing a limited pool of available funding through price.

It's mortgage rationing, plain and simple, and it will gradually reverse as confidence grows, liquidity returns and competition increases in the mortgage lending market.

As we have already clearly seen with a steady improvement in LTV requirements and rates over the last year.

I would suggest that rationing is a system whereby resources are allocated by a system that is not just who has the money to buy. Therefore this cannot be described as mortgage rationing.

Davesnave

Exocet wrote: »

That would be a pain to type in each time.

And you'd also be an anagram of 'A Bicycler's Picot Full Of Troll' which would be a dead giveaway! :rotfl:

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Nonsense.

It's because of the opportunity to profiteer from rationing a limited pool of available funding through price.

It's mortgage rationing, plain and simple, and it will gradually reverse as confidence grows, liquidity returns and competition increases in the mortgage lending market.

As we have already clearly seen with a steady improvement in LTV requirements and rates over the last year.

We may have seen steady improvments in rates etc. But we have also seen a contraction in the numbers of mortgages actually given.

Do wish you would stop calling it rationing!!

Here, have your mortgage rashionings...