FTBs, make your voice heard. Would YOU prefer lower prices/rates/laxer mortgage rules

undetterred

A return to lax mortgage lending?

Wait is that a stampede of FTB's rushing to vote:cool:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Cheaper house prices
Graham_Devon, LittleMissAspie, Sapphire, arby, carolt, leveller2911, madnessofBruno, mrsplinter

It's like a support group for crashaholics.

Cleaver

A return to lax mortgage lending?

I'm not a FTBer. But if I were I think I'd like to see cheaper house prices. Isn't this pretty much the case for anyone buying anything anywhere though? It's like asking the question, "you're going to buy something, would you like it a bit cheaper than it is now?". The answer, I imagine, would always be 'yes'.

So to take the answer further, I were a first time buyer I would want to see cheaper house prices, but I wouldn't be dreaming for a 30%+ crash. If I were making the decision to buy my first house I would want to be buying that house in a market that I felt had a certain amount of stability and confidence, not one that was falling through the floor. If I was a FTBer waiting in the wings and I saw house prices fall 40% (for example) and then stagnate for a few months, I'm still not sure I'd want to buy in to a market that erratic. 10% or 20% off or so would bring them in to a reasonable level for most people I think.

Derv has just said on the other thread that a FTBer can get a 10% mortgage for about 5%. This seems fine to me, and was the terms on which we bought our first house in 2003.

If I had a wishlist as a FTBer it would be for banks and lenders to think a bit more innovatively about how and who they lend money to. The rules at the moment seem very strict and I agree with Generali that if you can prove that you've saved for your deposit by decent budgeting and being sensible that should give you more access to credit than if you've been gifted a deposit. Nothing wrong with gifting deposits of course, as long as you can prove that you've been saving as well.

The 'return to lax lending' option is obviously a loaded question from someone who has an agenda. I guess a less loaded question would be, 'would you like to see a more relaxed approach to lending for FTBers?'. I would answer 'yes', in line with banks being more innovative and considered about lending to FTBers.

HOUSE_PRICE_CRASH_GHOULS

A return to lax mortgage lending?

Least we can now clearly identify the ghouls wishing waves of unemployment, the economy in ruins, and wanting good honest hardworking families thrown out their dream homes just for these parasitic vultures to pick up a house on the cheap.

LilacPixie

I'm not a FTB but my husband is. It's the deposit requirments that seem to be the biggest hurdle. TBH I have not seen a difference between FTB rates/deposit requirments and home mover rates/deposit requirments.

FATBALLZ

Cheaper house prices

I'd prefer lower prices as my deposit would be a lot more meaningful and the overpayments I intend to make would also be a lot more meaningful. Low interest rates are only really helpful if you've really stretched yourself and don't earn enough to save a deposit.

carolt

Cheaper house prices

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I don't think what an FTB would prefer really matters does it?

All we're hearing is that deposit requirements for reasonable rates are too high, prices are not going to reduce enough to put a decent dent in those desposits.

Doesn't matter to you, no.

But I don't think your opinion is really relevant, is it?

carolt

Cheaper house prices

Generali wrote: »

No, I just didn't vote as you wanted. If I voted for option 1 then you'd have been happy about it.

A big fall in house prices right now would cause big problems to an already fragile banking system.

Point 1 - no, that's rubbish - I made it clear I wanted FTVs only to vote, so the results were not skewed.

You are not a FTB. End of.

Point 2 - who said anything about a 'big' fall in house prices? I just said lower prices.

Plus I remain unconvinced that lower house prices, even by a large margin, would devastate the economy - it would redistribute some wealth, sure, from older to younger generations, sure, but is that a bad thing? The younger generations would be less likely to hoard the cash saved by cheaper housing costs than the elderly, thus actually boosting the economy.

The amounts saved by the state in reduced housing benefit costs would go a good way towards reducing the deficit.

I agree there would be short term pain for some - but longer term gain for many.

carolt

Cheaper house prices

ssss5sss, Sapphire and the stupidly-named House Price Crash Ghouls - none of you are FTBs either, so will you please stop trying to skew the poll.

Generali

A return to lax mortgage lending?

carolt wrote: »

Doesn't matter to you, no.

But I don't think your opinion is really relevant, is it?

Nor does yours or anyone else's on here by extension.

House prices are set in the market by buyers and sellers, interest rates are set in the market by borrowers and lenders, mortgage lending standards are set by banks and other financial companies depending on their attitudes to risk, wish for a greater market share and (potentially) regulatory restrictions.