So The Bulls Keep Bleating On About FTB's

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

-- 95% mortgages should be available, but only with Mortgage Indemnity Insurance to cover the bank against loss, just like happened in the old days. This would typically cost a one time fee of 2% of the mortgage, and the rates should probably be less competitive to deter people.

So, effectively the 95% mortgage becomes a 93% mortgage, assuming the buyer adds the insurance fee onto the loan. If the fee is payed up front, that's 2% less deposit, so that's 2% less buying power. Have I got this right ? If I have, I don't think there will be much call for 95% mortgages, until property prices demand every last penny from FTBs.

-- 100% mortgages should only be available under very limited circumstances. As one example, for key workers living in areas where rent is far more than a mortgage, who simply could not save up a deposit in a reasonable time. And a premium should be paid, so with insurance, and probably at a rate penalty for the first few years.

Not sure about this idea, but I'm not going to totally disagree with you.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DervProf wrote: »

So, effectively the 95% mortgage becomes a 93% mortgage, assuming the buyer adds the insurance fee onto the loan. If the fee is payed up front, that's 2% less deposit, so that's 2% less buying power. Have I got this right ? If I have, I don't think there will be much call for 95% mortgages, until property prices demand every last penny from FTBs.

The insurance was usually payable over a few years, not required upfront.

The typical fees for it ranged from 1% to 2% of the mortgage amount, but this was before big arrangement fees became common.

It'd need some fine tuning, obviously, but it's a workable solution, particularly for those FTB's living in the more expensive areas.

Not sure about this idea, but I'm not going to totally disagree with you.

I'm personally not a fan of 100% mortgages, but I do accept they are needed in limited circumstances. The thing is, they should be the exception, not the rule.

Percy1983

Right now I would have no problems getting a 90% mortgage to which I can see the rates are a little higher to which yes I would prefer a lower rate, with that the first 5 years will soon end and hopefully better rates will be waiting.

I am still failing to see the arguement, the current system will cause some hardship for the first 5 years, you HPI ramped scheme will cause a higher price which will cause hardship for 25 years... I pick the current system.

By all means I may hold off a bit longer for a 15% deposit which seems to help rates but I don't feel I need to.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No, the banks have only recently started this rate discrimination.

Rate "discrimination"?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Rate "discrimination"?

Yes.

Rate discrimination.

geneer

silvercar wrote: »

Sheep bleat, bulls bellow.

I thought the bulls were the sheeple?
Somekind of strange mutant hybrid perhapls.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes.

Rate discrimination.

Who or what, is being discriminated against?

wolvoman

B_Blank wrote: »

Capitalism needs winners and losers. People who bought houses in 2006-2008 were stupid and deserve to be punished. If they arent then corruption takes over from true capitalism....

I bought in 2007. Am I stupid?
In fact I borrowed 5.1 times my income. Am I more stupid?

And it was 60% interest only and only 40% repayment. How stupid of me eh?


But hang on - 3.5 years later I earn 20% more and have had a couple of smallish bonuses. I've paid off 10% of the interest only portion of outstanding debt. And I am on a BoE+0.2% for life. And I have nearly a 6 figure sum offsetting the mortgage.


Very stupid.

geneer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Post a clear and coherent point to debate with and I'm happy to [STRIKE]do so[/STRIKE] pretend it never happened and ghost off somewhere else.

Fixed that for you.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Post meaningless one line drivel and there's no point in replying...though I will be compelled to respond, at length regardless

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=41771630&postcount=9 :rotfl:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Otherwise, old boy, I'm afraid we'll have to write off your thread as another half baked trolling attempt, and ignore you accordingly.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:Hark at Hamish calling someone elses thread a half baked trolling attempt. You really should be getting more use out of your tiresome pot vs kettle picy.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I thought as much....
Incapable of moving much beyond the single-line discredited bear memes.....

Sad really.

You are completely incapable of debating the issues, when it's clear you don't even begin to understand them.

Now run along back over to hpc, where the rest of the intellectually challenged will no doubt welcome your blind parroting of their fallacies.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:God forbid we see you endlessly regurgitating discredited bull memes Spamish.

Its also fairly amusing to see you banging on about debating the issues, when you're the first bull troll to do a runner when the discussions become inconvenient.

You couldn't make it up.

geneer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes.

Rate discrimination.

Its a conspiracy I tells ya!

Tinfoil hat time I fear.