The time-bomb ticking under Britain's house prices

Mallotum_X

RenovationMan wrote: »

Even though we now have fewer mortgage providers than before the recession, I cant imagine that the market is so uncompetitive that they can afford to withdraw their fixed rates, just to spite borrowers for having the audacity to remain on SVR rates during a period of low interest rates.

What has happened in the past was fixed rate deals would be pulled as soon as a rate changed, with a new product (i.e reflecting the new rate) issued a day or two later.

Once rates start going up the banks will factor future rate rises into fixed deals, and the fixes will become more expensive than they were.

Its all timing at the end of the day, once rates start to move its then the gamble of when/if to fix.

chucky

chucky wrote: »

well done - you've just shot down in flames that Devon chaps argument.

nice work :T

DervProf wrote: »

OK, he implies that nearly half of the mortgages issued were self-cert, when that is claerly not true.

I know - he frequently get's it completely wrong

ukcarper

DervProf wrote: »

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.

How did the banks decide whose salary to check did you know when you applied that they weren’t going to check your salary. Are you also saying you didn’t even have to provide payslips.

DervProf

chucky wrote: »

I know - he frequently get's it completely wrong

As we all sometimes do, but in this case, despite his incorrect assumption, the point he makes is a valid one for debate. Nearly half of the mortgages granted between 2007-2010 were not income verified. That is a hard fact to ignore.

DervProf

ukcarper wrote: »

How did the banks decide whose salary to check did you know when you applied that they weren’t going to check your salary. Are you also saying you didn’t even have to provide payslips.

Not really sure how the banks decide whose salary to check. If payllips were required, that isn't really a barrier to anyone wanting to "enhance" their income figures.

ukcarper

DervProf wrote: »

Not really sure how the banks decide whose salary to check. If payllips were required, that isn't really a barrier to anyone wanting to "enhance" their income figures.

I agree but I would have thought that was the minimum requirement. I also think that if you thought that you had a 50% chance they would verify your salary most people would not lie.

DervProf

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree but I would have thought that was the minimum requirement. I also think that if you thought that you had a 50% chance they would verify your salary most people would not lie.

If people did lie about their income, did they know that the bank checked 50% of incomes ? If you were the type of person willing to lie, would you be worried about the bank verifying your income, or would you just lie anyway ?

I'm not sure, but do banks never check the income for self-cert applications ? I'd ask the same question about "Fast-Track" mortgages that Chucky mentioned. And another question that I`ve never had answered, but maybe someone would enlighten me - what are these websites all about ?.......

http://www.wageslips4u.co.uk/

DervProf

RenovationMan wrote: »

I may be a bit dim today, but I just dont understand the point your trying to make with these salary to house value ratios?

JonnyBravo has already explained it, and I`ve already expained it, but here it is, plain and simple..........

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Most houses that people buy don't cost more than 5 times their single or 3 times their joint income....

ukcarper

DervProf wrote: »

If people did lie about their income, did they know that the bank checked 50% of incomes ? If you were the type of person willing to lie, would you be worried about the bank verifying your income, or would you just lie anyway ?

I'm not sure, but do banks never check the income for self-cert applications ? I'd ask the same question about "Fast-Track" mortgages that Chucky mentioned. And another question that I`ve never had answered, but maybe someone would enlighten me - what are these websites all about ?.......

http://www.wageslips4u.co.uk/

I'm sure a few people would lie but I think the majority wouldn’t and with self-cert available people who would be inclined to lie would opt for them.

DervProf

RenovationMan wrote: »

Ah, it's a silly argument about symantics and the use of the English language rather than anything relevent to the discussion at hand?

Ho hum. What a waste of my valuable time. I should charge you. :mad:*


*Just so we dont end up in a semantics argument... By saying "I should Charge You". I mean ask you to pay for my wasted time, not charge into you physically.

Got there in the end. Well done.

Anyway, Hamish's statement was a single sentence, and clearly doesn't mention mortgages. I got picked up about a simple maths error, Graham was "corrected" by Chucky about the use of "Self-Cert" instead of non income verified mortgages (which include sef-certs). So we either agree to be very careful what we type, or we have to hope that we interpret what others type in the way they intended them to be interpreted.