Mortgage lenders call for restrictions on lending to be watered down.

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

I would have to disgree on that one AD, perhaps your average woman does spend less time at home with the baby than 50 years ago.

But for sure the average farther spends a lot more time with their child than 50 years ago.
Gone are the days of finish a shift, home for wife prepared tea then off to the pub for the night.

6 of 1, half a dozen of the other I think.

More weekend/anti social hours working. Later nights, more traffic & delays getting home, etc etc.

Counterbalanced by more annual leave, bank holidays etc.

To me, what has changed more is our priorities. I feel we choose to spend our time differently...

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

6 of 1, half a dozen of the other I think.

More weekend/anti social hours working. Later nights, more traffic & delays getting home, etc etc.

Counterbalanced by more annual leave, bank holidays etc.

To me, what has changed more is our priorities. I feel we choose to spend our time differently...

Social attitude shift for sure, men could have spent more time with children 50 years ago. They just chose not to, it just amazes me when you see old things and men were virtually lodgers, doing virtually what they wanted to do.

shortchanged_2

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

It's absolutely certain that mortgage lending needed tightening up. But there is a danger of screwing it too tightly. The requirement for 25% deposit, for example, is relatively 'draconian' since a fall of anything like 25% from current (relatively low) values is ludicrous to contemplate. [Especially with the tendancy - presumably rife at the moment - for valuers to came in at far below what is being paid].

So, OK, leave it at 25%, but then have 'reasonable' flexibility on income levels - but far from the stupid non-checked lies of the past. But preferably keep the 'affordability' fairly tight but relax up to 20% or 15% deposit. A well worded, signed, and clear statment making absolutely sure that the mortgagor understands perfectly the committment (s)he is entering, coupled with robust arreas procedures should be safe enough.

I think a lower deposit of 10 - 15% is fine as long as there is a stable housing market.

The problem in the UK is that we have a far too common problem of a boom and bust housing market, which is why we are so prone to the negative equity issue.

If the FSA's guidelines can help create a more stable and sustainable housing market then I really don't see a problem with smaller deposits.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

Social attitude shift for sure, men could have spent more time with children 50 years ago. They just chose not to, it just amazes me when you see old things and men were virtually lodgers, doing virtually what they wanted to do.

It was like moving from the mum to the surrogate mum (with a bit of rumpy pumpy thrown in)

the_flying_pig

mcc100 wrote: »

• verify the income of all borrowers
• assess an applicant's income and expenditure
• assess their ability to repay on a full capital-and-interest basis
• assume loans are for no longer than 25 years
• restrict the size of loans to people with past payment problems, and
• assume that interest rates might rise from their initial level.

Basically to implement measures that were in place 20 odd years ago when I took out my first mortgage.

If only they had stayed in place in the years leading up to 2007 then the housing market would not be in such a precarious state as it is now.

sensible post.

the_flying_pig

julieq wrote: »

I'm not really sure how many times we need to repeat this, but let's try again.

The default rate on UK mortgages is low, and was low even when rates were far higher. The financial crisis wasn't caused by lending in this country. Mortgage lending was and is a relatively safe bet for a bank, and what stopped lending wasn't high default rates, personal bankruptcies, or borrowers being overextended, it was an unknown level of liability to bad debt in the US which required balance sheets to be rebuilt.

It's really up to the banks to assess and price risk. Perhaps it's worth pointing out that even the worst of them is turning a profit on their UK mortgage books, and the proposals have more to do with a clattering shut of someone else's stable door for political reasons than having any basis in reality.

The consequence of reduced mortgage lending is lower levels of home ownership among the less well off and reduced savings rates - because the latter are paid for largely by mortgage lending, and the practical results of affordability checks is that they will favour the better off, all things being equal. So beware of the law of unintended consequences.

a few slivers of truth in there but the way you [hopefully for your sake deliberately] overlook many important contrary arguments comes across as rather bizarre.