3M homeowners wouldn't get mortgages today

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DervProf wrote: »

You seem to ask that question rather a lot (I think I`ve seen you ask that before).
?

This would be the second or third time I've asked it.

So define lax lending.

I've read that around 7% of lending in the UK in 2007 was "sub prime". Would you be happy with a return of 93% of 2007 lending?

Or do you think 3 million people should be locked out of the housing market through lending restrictions forever?

Or somewhere in between?

nembot

See... it's posts like that, that make me chuckle

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I know the pair of you are capable of doing better than this.

It is a fact that the total cost of buying a house, including mortgage costs, is cheaper now than the long term average.

It is also a fact that most people without a house cannot take advantage of this, as they can't get a mortgage.

Explain why you think those two facts are contradictory?

I`ll have a crack at it.

You did state that property was at peak affordability for FTBs (around September, I think).

Shortly afterwards, you started to complain that FTBs couldn`t get mortgages without huge deposits, or they had to pay back @ 5%+ (you may not have used that figure, but I think that isn`t too far from the truth).

Now, I haven`t sat down and calculated the exact figures, but I would think that going back a few years, say mid 2005, a FTB wouldn`t have needed such a large deposit, and would have easily got a mortgage deal at <5%. I suspect that a FTB property would have been around the same price as it is today.

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I've read that around 7% of lending in the UK in 2007 was "sub prime".

Does "sub prime" include fraudulent ?

By it`s nature, fraudulent activity can`t be accurately measured.

The programme I reffered to above exposed some of this fraudulent activity. I suspect that was the tip of the iceberg, judging by the way property prices continued to escalate after 2003/4.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Define lax lending.

125% mortgages - definitely
100% mortgages with no MIG to protect the bank - probably
Sub prime lending that is cheap enough to buy a house with - probably
100% sub prime mortgages - definitely (not sure if these ever existed)
No doc mortgages - definitely
Lo doc mortgages - in some circumstances

Like the judge said about pornography, I may not be able to define lax lending but I know it when I see it:

DervProf

Generali wrote: »

125% mortgages - definitely
100% mortgages with no MIG to protect the bank - probably
Sub prime lending that is cheap enough to buy a house with - probably
100% sub prime mortgages - definitely (not sure if these ever existed)
No doc mortgages - definitely
Lo doc mortgages - in some circumstances

Hamish, either don`t ask the question again, or tell us that the above weren`t available, or weren`t used.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

This would be the second or third time I've asked it.

So define lax lending.

I've read that around 7% of lending in the UK in 2007 was "sub prime". Would you be happy with a return of 93% of 2007 lending?

Or do you think 3 million people should be locked out of the housing market through lending restrictions forever?

Or somewhere in between?

The article defines it. Just a 2% rise, would see 37% of mortgage holders outside of affordability. What about self cert with no documents?

I'd truly love to see your defination of lax lending.

DervProf

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd truly love to see your defination of lax lending. Or does it simply not exist in Hamish land?

I`ve cracked this gag before, but I think now is the time for a reminder.

LAXative lending : Tell a few porkies to obtain a mortgage, spend 25 years sh***ing yourself about the repayments.

DervProf

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What about self cert with no documents?

What about WITH documents........

http://www.replacement-payslips.co.uk/

???

Graham_Devon

DervProf wrote: »

What about WITH documents........

http://www.replacement-payslips.co.uk/

???

Makes you wonder why this kind of blatant fraud is allowed to happen really. Everyone knows about it in the housing industry, but I guess if it benefits HPI, a blind eye is turned.