How will the gridock be broken?

Blacklight

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

If it was only that easy why isn't it happening now? Banks have never normally been known to miss a trick. Well certainly not all of them at once.

It'll come. Chelsea are already offering loans more than 100%. As posted in the EA thread today, banks are already giving 90% loans without a problem.

The trick is not to lend to people who can't pay it back. If you look at the repossession numbers over the last few years there are very few people who do actually fall into that category.

Once again it's down to sentiment and fear. Whether those are baseless or actually materialise is something entirely different.

Graham_Devon

Blacklight wrote: »

It'll come. Chelsea are already offering loans more than 100%.

No they are not. That's majorly disingenuous.

They are allowing their current mortgage customers to move and take any Negative Equity, or "higher than value" loan with them.

wherediditallgothen

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No they are not. That's majorly disingenuous.

They are allowing their current mortgage customers to move and take any Negative Equity, or "higher than value" loan with them.

So the good deals are for those that have a decent deposit or for those that are already customers with a satisfactory trading history. Obviously those are the people who are most likely to pay it back one way or the other.

Blacklight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No they are not. That's majorly disingenuous.

They are allowing their current mortgage customers to move and take any Negative Equity, or "higher than value" loan with them.

Interesting that you would make a post specifically to argue your case on this Graham but no mention of disingenuousness when you responded to the thread:
"non-verified loans made up 43% of all home loans granted in first 3 months of 2010"

Which is obviously total bullshіt.

I wish you'd stop sitting on the fence Graham.

Graham_Devon

Blacklight wrote: »

Interesting that you would make a post specifically to argue your case on this Graham but no mention of disingenuousness when you responded to the thread:
"non-verified loans made up 43% of all home loans granted in first 3 months of 2010"

Which is obviously total bullshіt.

I wish you'd stop sitting on the fence Graham.

Oops, seems I just upset another bull.

BTW, that thread you talk about? Go read it again. I don't want to upset you anymore, but that isn't a particularly good retort, considering what carol linked to was completely true, therefore not disingenuous.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oops, seems I just upset another bull.

To be bullish is one matter. To create bull**** is another.

Reminds me of a line from a song on Dark Side of the Moon.

"Hanging on quiet desperation is the English way".......

Blacklight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

what carol linked to was completely true

I think you've confused yourself Graham.

Self-certification mortgages accounted for almost half of all new mortgages advanced between 2007 and the first quarter of 2010, according to the FSA.

wherediditallgothen

Blacklight wrote: »

I think you've confused yourself Graham.

Self-certification mortgages accounted for almost half of all new mortgages advanced between 2007 and the first quarter of 2010, according to the FSA.

I'm not sure Graham's the confused one having read the thread in question.

neverdespairgirl

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Interesting.

I'd be delighted to see double digit rises.

Why would you be delighted?

Thrugelmir

Blacklight wrote: »

I think you've confused yourself Graham.

Self-certification mortgages accounted for almost half of all new mortgages advanced between 2007 and the first quarter of 2010, according to the FSA.

There is a fundamental difference between Self-Certification Mortgages and verification of income. Which the NA appears to have muddled itself in fact. They are two seperate issues.

Under the proposals self-certs will be banned entirely. Whereas income verification will tightened up.