We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The time-bomb ticking under Britain's house prices
Comments
-
RenovationMan wrote: »You have done the maths wrong again, even after it was pointed out by Jonny and even after you acknowledged your mistake!
The cost of the house is £130k, the deposit is £30 and the mortgage is £100k. The salary to mortgage multiple is therefore £100k / £25k = 4. The FTB is therefor buying at 4 x salary.
My maths is correct. I didn't mention the word "mortgage".
Your second statement is also correct, as you you are talking about borrowing ratios.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
Losing_the_way wrote: »We can assume that when the reverse occurs the opposite effects will be caused. Those with debt will have less disposable income and the small numbers of people with savings will be better off.
So when at some point in the future the rates move up it will have a generally negative effect on the majorities disposable income. To claim otherwise is denial is it not.
I wonder if the number of savers is small, compared to the number of borrowers ? I suspect that the number of savers is actually quite high.
To claim otherwise is to think about it for a while, and not jumping to a conclusion.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
jeeez, talk about people being really hard of reading.
half of the mortgages were not self certification. i repeat for your benefit Devon, they were not self certified.
a mortgage that is self-certified and a mortgage that income isn't checked because the person has a good/high credit score are two very different things.
Yes, but if you take Mr Bravo's advice, you must look for the nuances in what Graham wrote.
Essentially, a self-cert mortgage is a mortgage where the lender doesn't (always ?) verify the borrower's income. If there is another type of mortgage where the lender just says "he/she's got a good credit score, therefore we don't need to verify that income", then they are similar in that verification of income may prove that the applicant was being "creative" with their income figures.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
errr no - you need to read the post again.Yes, but if you take Mr Bravo's advice, you must look for the nuances in what Graham wrote.
Essentially, a self-cert mortgage is a mortgage where the lender doesn't (always ?) verify the borrower's income. If there is another type of mortgage where the lender just says "he/she's got a good credit score, therefore we don't need to verify that income", then they are similar in that verification of income may prove that the applicant was being "creative" with their income figures.
a fast track mortgage application and a self certified mortgage are two very different things.
please try again,0 -
errr no - you need to read the post again.
please try again
Your reply ?
Yes, I agree, nearly 50% of mortgages issued 2007-2010 were not self-cert mortgages (as far as I know). I read an article a little while back stating that during a similar time period, nearly half (48% ?) of mortgages issued were not income verified. That would suggest that some of them were self-cert, and some were "normal" mortgages where the lender did not verify the borrower's income.
Ahhh, you mentioned "fast track" mortgages, those must be the other type of mortgages that aren't income verified.
Thank you for the clarification.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
Saver and borrowers aren’t mutually exclusive.
Indeed, and neither is immune from the effects of higher inflation.
I'll add that Losing the way did state that "the small numbers of people with savings will be better off", implying that there are only a small number of savers.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
well done - you've just shot down in flames that Devon chaps argument.
nice work :T
I wouldn't say I shot down his argument. Having read his post again, a lot of what he states is probably quite accurate. OK, he implies that nearly half of the mortgages issued were self-cert, when that is claerly not true. What he does state is that nearly half of mortgages were not income verified, and therefore may well have included incorrect income levels.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards