"non-verified loans made up 43% of all home loans granted in first 3 months of 2010"

carolt

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11390764

Yikes. :eek: :eek:

nearlynew

You used the wrong font carol. This is what you want..........


LIAR LOANS

payless

just because income was not verified by lender does not mean it was not verifable , may even have been checked by broker- but lender not asked for proof

nearlynew

payless wrote: »

just because income was not verified by lender does not mean it was not verifable , may even have been checked by broker- but lender not asked for proof

What a f*cking joke.


Mortgage brokers, as the "foot soldiers" in the HPI crusade, are as guilty as anyone for the whole sorry saga we are now witnessing.

Many people who now find themselves in difficulty with their mortgage were encouraged by brokers to take out loans that they couldn't really afford. Many brokers would additionally recommend IO mortgages as a way of keeping down the payments.

(and of course, IO attracts a nice fat commission for the lying thieves as well)


what a shower of !!!!!!

Graham_Devon

Wish you would stop sitting on the fence nearlynew

des_cartes

payless wrote: »

just because income was not verified by lender does not mean it was not verifable , may even have been checked by broker- but lender not asked for proof

Checked by a broker:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Really2

This ones desprate carol, you saw this at 3pm today and even commented.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/36842978#Comment_36842978

the truth is
bit of a misread by the BBC I think. Or the CML trying some scare tactics.
http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/...mortgages-self

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

So I read that as the mortgages between that period, I dare say most were in 2007.

you wrote

carolt wrote: »

Still one hell of a lot.

So why did you feel it needed a new thread on the same subject?


Your title as well you know is totally fictitious!

Graham_Devon

It could be that self cert accounts for 43% in the first few months of 2010.

And ALSO made up nearly half of all mortgages since 2007.

It's not impossible. Two differing sets of figures, so don't jump the gun too much!

Can't even see the newstateman article anyway.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It could be that self cert accounts for 43% in the first few months of 2010.

And ALSO made up nearly half of all mortgages since 2007.

It's not impossible. Two differing sets of figures, so don't jump the gun too much!

Can't even see the newstateman article anyway.

How many self cert mortgage products are available GD? honestly, if you think that since 2007 - 2010 has been a steady 43% you really are barking.
http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2010/07/certification-mortgages-self

Self cert was virtually history early 2008

Simple maths tells me that if 3X as many houses sold in 2007 and that it was common practice then the majority would be in 2007.
There were more mortgages issued in 2007 than 2008 & 2009 combined I believe.
Big logical breakdown there GD.

Anyway, it is still the same point, no need to start a new thread.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

How many self cert mortgage products are available GD? honestly, if you think that since 2007 - 2010 has been a steady 43% you really are barking..

Steady? Who said steady? (apart from you?) Again, read what I say, not what you think I say.

vivatifosi

What's a verified loan though? We've recently remortgaged and because we're staying with the same lender for the same house they haven't asked for anything. If such circumstances are included in the 43% it would explain why the figure is so high, even if the article goes onto explain it differently.