FTB Discrimination "incredibly unfair", now pay thousands more for mortgages

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Unfortunately for you, I have been proved right

yes - you have been proved right... no wait...

has the Alt-A ticking time bomb issue gone off yet??

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

As the article points out, FTB's are being discriminated against by banks and it is costing them thousands of pounds a year.

Yes, today`s FTB`s have been discriminated against by banks. Banks that went on a lending spree which caused high HPI. Banks which made it possible for a landlord to by one property, then another on the back of the equity in the first one, then another, then another. Not only does that limit supply for FTB`s, it further increases prices. This ends up being bad for FTB`s, but good for those who already own one or more properties. Well, they seem to think it`s good, because their own "investment" has gone up in value. Some of us, however, can see beyond our own four walls, and realise what a mess things have become. We are all at the mercy of the banks, it is they who have massive influence on the property market (aided by the media who stoke the fire). The banks will always lend you an umberella when the weather is fine, but take it back when it`s raining.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DervProf wrote: »

Not all FTB`s rent. I didn`t. I lived with my parents until I saved the deposit. I suspect that is still often the case.

I have no doubt that those who live with mummy and daddy will be better off than a renter, and able to save a good deposit.

And indeed, I have no doubt that those with wealthy parents who get gifted deposits will be just fine as well.

But I am amazed at the sudden lack of compassion from so many bears for all the young people, perhaps even a majority, who do not fit into either of those categories. Those for whom saving a huge deposit is an impossibility, but are paying the same or more in rent as they would be on a mortgage.

You seem content for them to be locked out, enriching their landlord, and for those who do get on the ladder to be ripped off by the banks.

Astonishing..... It's almost as if there was some vested interest at work here....:cool:

chucky

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But I am amazed at the sudden lack of compassion from so many bears for all the young people, perhaps even a majority, who do not fit into either of those categories. Those for whom saving a huge deposit is an impossibility, but are paying the same or more in rent as they would be on a mortgage.

there is a certain lack of consistency in people's arguments...

i dislike the term bear or bull - nonsense...

chucky

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

As one poster has pointed out terms are already being relaxed (40% deposits down to 25% deposits) and over time this will carry on.

the average mortgage pre-2007 was with a 25% deposit.

i'd say the average now would be closer to 40% than 25% but it is trending downwards

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I have no doubt that those who live with mummy and daddy will be better off than a renter, and able to save a good deposit.

And indeed, I have no doubt that those with wealthy parents who get gifted deposits will be just fine as well.

But I am amazed at the sudden lack of compassion from so many bears for all the young people, perhaps even a majority, who do not fit into either of those categories. Those for whom saving a huge deposit is an impossibility, but are paying the same or more in rent as they would be on a mortgage.

You seem content for them to be locked out, enriching their landlord, and for those who do get on the ladder to be ripped off by the banks.

Astonishing..... It's almost as if there was some vested interest at work here....:cool:

Hamish. One word springs to mind to describe you..............




Contradictory.

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I have no doubt that those who live with mummy and daddy will be better off than a renter, and able to save a good deposit.

And indeed, I have no doubt that those with wealthy parents who get gifted deposits will be just fine as well.

But I am amazed at the sudden lack of compassion from so many bears for all the young people, perhaps even a majority, who do not fit into either of those categories. Those for whom saving a huge deposit is an impossibility, but are paying the same or more in rent as they would be on a mortgage.

You seem content for them to be locked out, enriching their landlord, and for those who do get on the ladder to be ripped off by the banks.

Astonishing..... It's almost as if there was some vested interest at work here....:cool:

I am neither content that FTB`s are "locked out" (but I`d rather they be that way than be encouraged to take on a large mortgage at a low interest rate, only to suffer financial hardship when rates rise), nor am I a "vested interest".

Are you accusing me of being a VI ? And if you are, what do you think my vested interest is ? If you take a guess, I`ll give you an honest answer.

If anyone has a VI in FTB`s getting cheap credit, it`s those who have a VI in high property prices.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DervProf wrote: »

I am neither content that FTB`s are "locked out" (but I`d rather they be that way than be encouraged to take on a large mortgage at a low interest rate, only to suffer financial hardship when rates rise),

Big assumption there.... That FTB's will suffer "financial hardship" when rates rise.

Most would not, if of course they weren't being penalised by absurdly high rates at the start of the mortgage.

The surest way to protect FTB's from rate rises is to ensure their margin above base is as low as possible.

Todays low base rates are a once in a lifetime chance to pay down mortgages in record time. IF you have a decent mortgage rate.

So what you are really saying is that you don't think FTB's should be allowed to take on the risk of taking advantage of these once in a lifetime rates. Despite the mainstream projection that rates are unlikely to cross 3% in the next 5 years, because it is in your interest to see prices fall. And if prices don't fall significantly, you are content for these FTB's to remain financially penalised.

nor am I a "vested interest".

Are you accusing me of being a VI ? And if you are, what do you think my vested interest is ? If you take a guess, I`ll give you an honest answer.

If anyone has a VI in FTB`s getting cheap credit, it`s those who have a VI in high property prices.

Everyone has a vested interest.

Some of us are just more open about ours than others....:cool:

nearlynew

I love all this "priced out for a generation" stuff.


what if that happened a generation ago and all the current HPI cheerleaders were priced out and couldn't afford to buy.

would that be good?


idiotic debt-junkie bullsh1t as usual.

Graham_Devon

Hamish, your stance on "if prices fall, so will supply as it will be pulled from the market, and then house prices go up" is guff.

You are just basically saying "what happened once, will happen again". Yet in other scenarios on the housing market, you categorically tell us this time it's different.

For prices to rise on falling supply again (if indeed sellers all pulled their houses off he market for the second time, STILL not selling and getting where they want to), you would also need everything else that happened to continue happening.

These things being - Rising employment, new lows in interest rates, a retraction of credit, QE, further extending the halting of repo's, further extension of SMI etc.

The problem is, employment is likely to fall again due to cuts. We all know and accept this. We could get a new low on interest rates, but nothing could have the impact last time round had. A further retraction of credit would basically mean credit was practically unavailable, halting of repo's even further could be done, but it's storing up massive problems, and SMI is being cut.

Nothing is the same this time round as last time round. You should know this. You keep telling us.

So I'm unsure why you just say "supply drying up made prices rise and this WILL happen again" as if it's an absolute given.