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!
One Million FTB-s prevented from buying
Comments
-
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »There's no shortage of summer holidays.
For those that can afford them.
Anyone trying to get 2 weeks somewhere nice for less than £300 might find a bit of a shortage.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
For those without a decent deposit and/or requiring a high salary multiple.
No, just a shortage.
The salary multiple and deposit sizes are designed to reduce the pool of borrowers to fit the available funds.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »No, just a shortage.
The salary multiple and deposit sizes are designed to reduce the pool of borrowers to fit the available funds.
So, if we get back the "unlimited pool of funding from the wholesale markets", there will be no need to for the salary multiple and deposit sizes to reduce the pool of borrowers to fit the available funds, as the funds will be "unlimited".30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
So, if we get back the "unlimited pool of funding from the wholesale markets", there will be no need to for the salary multiple and deposit sizes to reduce the pool of borrowers to fit the available funds, as the funds will be "unlimited".
Well there's always a need for sensible lending standards, but you won't be refusing hundreds of thousands of otherwise good borrowers a year and forcing them to enrich their landlords.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Well there's always a need for sensible lending standards, but you won't be refusing hundreds of thousands of otherwise good borrowers a year and forcing them to enrich their landlords.
Agreed (to a degree). But.....
With a property shortage, isn't allowing 100,000s to buy (by loosening credit restrictions) pouring petrol on the flames ?
And what about the poor landlords who would suddenly lose tenants ?30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
Agreed (to a degree). But.....
With a property shortage, isn't allowing 100,000s to buy (by loosening credit restrictions) pouring petrol on the flames ?
No. It's enabling FTB-s to compete with landlords.
And only with the return of more lending, will we see house building increase to anything like the numbers we need.
The mortgage famine has reduced building to absurdly low levels. Builders won't build what they cant sell. So it's actually worsening the housing shortage.And what about the poor landlords who would suddenly lose tenants?
There'll still be tenants. But presumably a lot of the accidental landlords could sell up, and probably be quite happy about it.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
It might work (fairly, IMO) if credit were to be eased for FTB's, and be kept tight for potential BTLs. A bit of tax "disincentive" for existing landlords might be another bit of "market control" that would make home ownership a prospect for more people.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0
-
It might work (fairly, IMO) if credit were to be eased for FTB's, and be kept tight for potential BTLs. A bit of tax "disincentive" for existing landlords might be another bit of "market control" that would make home ownership a prospect for more people.
Potentially so.
You'd have to seriously increase lending to FTB-s though, more than double todays numbers, at far lower deposit levels, before looking to crack down too hard on landlords.
Otherwise the FTB-s will still be stuck, and landlords will just pass through the costs into rent.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »And only with the return of more lending, will we see house building increase to anything like the numbers we need.
If your read the major housebuilders financial annual accounts. They are building the property that people currently wish to buy i.e. larger more expensive units.
Current transaction levels of house purchase across the board may be the new "norm". As people move less frequently.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Potentially so.
You'd have to seriously increase lending to FTB-s though, more than double todays numbers, at far lower deposit levels, before looking to crack down too hard on landlords.
Otherwise the FTB-s will still be stuck, and landlords will just pass through the costs into rent.
I can see that.
Increase lending to FTBs (a lot) - OK I'll go with that, so long as......
"Cracking down" on landlords comes shortly after.
Mix in a bit of favourable lending (+ some tax sweeteners) for builders who build "affordable" homes, and I think that maybe we might have a plan that we can both take something from (and I don't mean hard cash or brownie points).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
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards